Fun Fun Logic Quiz: What's that Fallacy!

[james bond]

That doesn't reflect typical atheist belief.
Trying to trick me, eh?

I wasn't trying to trick you. So, what is missing?

A: God exists. (I've heard believers say this.)
A': God cannot be proven to exist. (I've heard believers say this.)
B: God cannot be proven to not exist. (I've heard non-believers say this.)
C: Therefore he does not exist. (I've heard atheists say this.)

Atheist's always claim since God cannot be proven to exist that they believe He doesn't exist, A, A' & C. If a believer claims A, then atheists say prove God exists. Believer says A'. Believer says prove God does not exist. Then the atheist says it's up to the person making the claim that God exists to prove it and B. He has to claim C to be an atheist.

Atheist fallacy.

 

[Revoltingest]

I wasn't trying to trick you. So, what is missing?

A: God exists. (I've heard believers say this.)
A': God cannot be proven to exist. (I've heard believers say this.)
B: God cannot be proven to not exist. (I've heard non-believers say this.)
C: Therefore he does not exist. (I've heard atheists say this.)

Atheist's always claim since God cannot be proven to exist that they believe He doesn't exist, A, A' & C. If a believer claims A, then atheists say prove God exists. Believer says A'. Believer says prove God does not exist. Then the atheist says it's up to the person making the claim that God exists to prove it and B. He has to claim C to be an atheist.

Atheist fallacy.

I know many atheists, & I've never heard one make the underlined conclusion.
Were it typical, examples could be found here on RF. Have any?

 

[james bond]

I know many atheists, & I've never heard one make the underlined conclusion.
Were it typical, examples could be found here on RF. Have any?

First, let's look at the definition of atheism:
"Definition of atheism

1. 1a : a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
2. b : a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods"

The argument is based on what they believe and why or how they came to their conclusion.

Quora
"Matthew Whitwam, I believe in no gods, no deities almighty...
Written 25 May 2015
The term theism means that this god (or gods) would intervene in the universe and strongly implies that they created it too (definition of theism in English from the Oxford dictionary), so those are two known aspects of any theist's god which atheists can ask for evidence of (gods that do not intervene in the universe are the subject of deistic belief systems).

On the other hand, I can't think of a single time I've heard this question being asked without it being addressed to a theist already claiming their particular god is real. These gods have many attributes which should be evident or testable and it is not the atheist who is claiming to know this god, rather it is the theist. The theist is saying "my god is real, he created the universe by means of magical incantation (for example) and can do x, y and z".

Of course, when the atheist says "those are some pretty astonishing claims, if you want me to believe what you say I need to see some sort of evidence" we're accused of being unreasonable."

Full response here
https://www.quora.com/Atheists-dema...w-God-looks-like-or-what-His-powers-should-be

 

[Revoltingest]

Quora
"Matthew Whitwam, I believe in no gods, no deities almighty...
Written 25 May 2015

Could you quote the relevant portion?
And to what extent does he speak for other atheists?
(A single example doesn't make his views typical for all of us.)

The term theism means that this god (or gods) would intervene in the universe and strongly implies that they created it too (definition of theism in English from the Oxford dictionary), so those are two known aspects of any theist's god which atheists can ask for evidence of (gods that do not intervene in the universe are the subject of deistic belief systems).

On the other hand, I can't think of a single time I've heard this question being asked without it being addressed to a theist already claiming their particular god is real. These gods have many attributes which should be evident or testable and it is not the atheist who is claiming to know this god, rather it is the theist. The theist is saying "my god is real, he created the universe by means of magical incantation (for example) and can do x, y and z".

Of course, when the atheist says "those are some pretty astonishing claims, if you want me to believe what you say I need to see some sort of evidence" we're accused of being unreasonable."

Full response here
https://www.quora.com/Atheists-dema...w-God-looks-like-or-what-His-powers-should-be

Well, it does strike me as unreasonable to believe something exists without being able to verify it.
Just what constitutes "verification" will vary from person to person. Some are OK with hearing the
voice of gods in their head....some feel their presence....& their could be other methods.
But I'm thinking of something which one person could demonstrate to another...something objective.
Lacking this, I see no reason to believe. This is not proof the various gods don't exist though.
And your claim that atheists typically use this as a 'logical' proof is erroneous.

 

[james bond]

Could you quote the relevant portion?
And to what extent does he speak for other atheists?
(A single example doesn't make his views typical for all of us.)

Well, it does strike me as unreasonable to believe something exists without being able to verify it.
Just what constitutes "verification" will vary from person to person. Some are OK with hearing the
voice of gods in their head....some feel their presence....& their could be other methods.
But I'm thinking of something which one person could demonstrate to another...something objective.
Lacking this, I see no reason to believe. This is not proof the various gods don't exist though.
And your claim that atheists typically use this as a 'logical' proof is erroneous.

I can find others, but I doubt it will change your mind. My question was what was missing in the logical argument?

 

[james bond]

Well, it does strike me as unreasonable to believe something exists without being able to verify it.
Just what constitutes "verification" will vary from person to person. Some are OK with hearing the
voice of gods in their head....some feel their presence....& their could be other methods.
But I'm thinking of something which one person could demonstrate to another...something objective.
Lacking this, I see no reason to believe. This is not proof the various gods don't exist though.
And your claim that atheists typically use this as a 'logical' proof is erroneous.

Here's an example that contradicts what you said is unreasonable.

People, mostly liberals and atheists, believe that aliens exist based on the vastness of the universe. That is fallacious argument because of argumentum ad populum.

If aliens exist based on the vastness of the universe, then God can exist based on the vastness of the universe.

 

[Revoltingest]

I can find others, but I doubt it will change your mind. My question was what was missing in the logical argument?

Your proffered argument attributed to atheists.....

B: God cannot be proven to not exist. (I've heard non-believers say this.)
C: Therefore he does not exist. (I've heard atheists say this.)

.....isn't a logical argument at all.

The reason you won't convince me this is typical of atheists
is because it is atypical. It sounds like a straw man.
You've no surveys to cite, have you?

 

[james bond]

Your proffered argument attributed to atheists.....

.....isn't a logical argument at all.

The reason you won't convince me this is typical of atheists
is because it is atypical. You've no surveys to cite, have you?

No need for surveys. It's a logical argument. If it isn't, then why isn't it a logical argument? That's my question.

Second, I don't want others opinions, but yours. What is your logical argument for being an atheist?

 

[Revoltingest]

No need for surveys. It's a logical argument. If it isn't, then why isn't it a logical argument? That's my question.

The conclusion cannot be derived from the premise.

Second, I don't want others opinions, but yours. What is your logical argument for being an atheist?

I have no formal logical argument at all.
Tis the simple view that with no objective evidence that
gods exist, there's no reason to beliekve they exist.
Do you believe this is fallacious?

 

[james bond]

The conclusion cannot be derived from the premise.

I have no formal logical argument at all.
Tis the simple view that with no objective evidence that
gods exist, there's no reason to beliekve they exist.
Do you believe this is fallacious?

Yet, that is what many atheists do.

So to paraphrase your logic:

There is no objective evidence that God exists.
Therefore, there is no reason to believe God exists.

I can accept this logic. It is based on faith or what you believe.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yet, that is what many atheists do.

What you claim conflicts with my extensive experience discussing such things with other atheists.
I've not known a single one to claim that lack of proof for a god is proof the god does not exist.

Similarly, I've not known a single believer who claims that lack of disproof for a god is proof it exists.

So to paraphrase your logic:

There is no objective evidence that God exists.
Therefore, there is no reason to believe God exists.

That's accurate.

I can accept this logic. It is based on faith or what you believe.

You must be using some novel definition of "faith".
I'll apply the old reductio ad absurdum....
By your reasoning, it would take faith to not believe in the tooth fairy.

Faith isn't required to eschew belief in things unevidenced.

Btw, this sure beats the political 'discussions' going on elsewhere here.
People sure can get worked up over things insignificant or imagined, eh.

 

[james bond]

What you claim conflicts with my extensive experience discussing such things with other atheists.
I've not known a single one to claim that lack of proof for a god is proof the god does not exist.

Similarly, I've not known a single believer who claims that lack of disproof for a god is proof it exists.

That's accurate.

You must be using some novel definition of "faith".
I'll apply the old reductio ad absurdum....
By your reasoning, it would take faith to not believe in the tooth fairy.

Faith isn't required to eschew belief in things unevidenced.

Btw, this sure beats the political 'discussions' going on elsewhere here.
People sure can get worked up over things insignificant or imagined, eh.

We're not talking about false gods or a tooth fairy. They can be disproved. You're being illogical.

Thus, I'm not using ad absurdum, but am correct in that you base your atheism on faith.

 

[Revoltingest]

We're not talking about false gods or a tooth fairy.

How do you know the difference between a false god & a real one?

They can be disproved. You're being illogical.

What is your proof that gods or the tooth fairy don't exist?

Thus, I'm not using ad absurdum, but am correct in that you base your atheism on faith.

Bless your heart.

 

[james bond]

How do you know the difference between a false god & a real one?

What is your proof that gods or the tooth fairy don't exist?

Bless your heart.

Ha ha. Shouldn't you know that because you're an atheist? The false god has some contradiction or something that is false. For a real one, you need to have faith and then God will reveal Himself to you. Here are a couple of facts that may help, 1) Your world exists because you exist, 2) When you die, you will die alone and your world will disappear with you.

If the tooth fairy exists, then I can pull your tooth and tell you to put it under your pillow. If there is a tooth fairy, then it will put money in place of the tooth when you wake up.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ha ha. Shouldn't you know that because you're an atheist?

You might be surprised at how little I know.

The false god has some contradiction or something that is false. For a real one, you need to have faith and then God will reveal Himself to you.

That path is unavailable to me, ie, to start with faith in something unevidenced.
But it poses a problem for those able to employ it. If you start off with belief,
bias confirmation will follow.

Here are a couple of facts that may help, 1) Your world exists because you exist, 2) When you die, you will die alone and your world will disappear with you.

It's hard to interpret something which sounds like poetic imagery.

If the tooth fairy exists, then I can pull your tooth and tell you to put it under your pillow. If there is a tooth fairy, then it will put money in place of the tooth when you wake up.

That gives us a way to test the existence of the TF.
But true believers will say she (he?) works in mysterious ways.
Not everyone gets the money.
See....beliefs in the supernatural are tricky.
Pick a religion....& any test I design will fall prey to such special pleadings.
This makes objective verification elusive.