Well that is an example of the fallacy, which simply stated says that nothing is proved nor disproved from a lack of evidence.
No you offered two premises
Either A
Or not A.
Which as I said is misleading since both those are claims, and while theism is a belief, which is the affirmation of a claim, atheism is not.
No it’s not a choice at all, you offered a bare claim, presented a “foundational belief”.
All I’ve done is ask you to demonstrate objective evidence for your belief?
That’s a textbook argument from incredulity fallacy.
Now you’ve combined an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy with an argument from incredulity fallacy.
Firstly you keep asserting purpose, what purpose, and what objective evidence can you demonstrate for it.
Secondly morality is the ability to differentiate between “right and wrong” behaviours. Of course these are necessarily subjective, though in societal animals are based on broad consensus. If you claim they have any transcendent qualities then demonstrate some evidence beyond your inability to believe otherwise, as that is an argument from incredulity fallacy.
The irrational arguments, that contain known logical fallacies, and for which you can demonstrate no objective evidence. Again, as an atheist I’m not claiming no deity exists, I’m withholding belief from your claim a deity does exist, because you can’t demonstrate any objective evidence for the claim. It’s how I treat all claims.
I don’t think you grasp how debate works, but you are of course free to leave anytime you wish.
I don’t believe your claims because your arguments are irrational, and you can demonstrate no objective evidence for them.
Third option - DO NOT KNOW until gum balls are removed from machine and counted.
Arguing one side or the other is pointless because it is just a guess (from one to the other).
Describing attributes to your gum ball is now further imaginative foolery when projected as evidence for either an even or odd amount. It in no way strengthens “demonstrable evidence ie counting the gum balls” to say you experience the “gum whisper to you that they are odd” or the “even gum balls are love”.
Except that this is a tiresome strawman routinely erected by mythology fanboys, that bears no relation to scientific postulates.
Apparently you failed to learn in basic science classes, what scientists actually postulate on the matter. Namely, that the universe and its contents are the product of testable natural processes, involving well-defined entities and interactions.
Furthermore, I’m reminded at this juncture, of the manner in which Nietzsche wrote a scathing excoriation of those so-called “philosophers” who invent a metaphysic for the purpose of imposing an ethic. Except of course, that there is no evidence that an ethic of any sort is an intrinsic part of the fabric of the universe, and indeed, the idea becomes absurd when one realises that there is no point in an ethic existing, unless there exist entities capable of applying it. Which has not been the case for most of the history of the observable universe.
Oh, and atheism isn’t a “worldview”. In its rigorous formulation, it’s nothing more than suspicion of unsupported mythology fanboy assertions.
This assertion doesn’t rise to the level of competence required to be wrong. It’s rectally extracted word salad.
Those of us who paid attention in history class, not only recognise that the real motivations for the actions of the individuals in question, were [1] the pursuit of a political ideology, and [2] the consolidation of personal power, but also recognise that these individuals were rampantly anti-science. Stalin threw evolutionary biologists into Gulags. Hitler gave support to at least some of the infantile pseudo-scientific wibblings of Julius Streicher, a Jew-baiter with a low IQ, whose fulminatingly excremental output is documented in some detail in Airey Neave’s book covering the Nuremberg Trials.
Here’s a clue for you - verifiable historical fact counts for more than ex recto apologetic fabrication here.
You obviously haven’t read your favourite mythology. The creation myth in Genesis is a collection of assertions on this very topic, all of which are basically wrong. Furthermore, the various nomads who scribbled parts of your mythology, engage in numerous excursions into physics and biology that are at best wrong, and at worst farcical. Such as failing to count correctly the number of legs that an insect possesses, and asserting that genetics is purportedly controlled by coloured sticks.
This isn’t an “argument”, it’s another ex recto assertion. Indeed, I’ve yet to encounter a mythology fanboy who knows what is genuinely required, to convert that assertion into something other than the product of his ringpiece. You might also want to factor in here, that several million peer reviewed scientific papers point to testable natural processes being responsible for the observable universe and its contents, not a cartoon magic man from a goat herder mythology.
“I’m too stupid to understand science, therefore my magic man must have done it” isn’t an “argument”, it’s an admission of ignorance.
As for ethics, you might want to factor in here, that there exists an abundant scientific literature, pointing to the evolutionary and biological basis of [1] our capacity for ethical thought, and [2] the motivation to act thereupon. Indeed, certain brain development genes involved in the formation of structures such as the ventromedial prefrontal cortex play an important role here, and those genes have a phylogenetic history that is documented in relevant papers.
Atheism doesn’t “give rise to explanatory problems” because it’s not a “world view” or a source of assertions. It’s merely the discarding of mythology fanboy assertions, in accordance with the rules of proper discourse. Which you appear to be unaware of.
a history lesson currently in the making.