Strong-Atheism: A fallacy?

[SkepticX]

I've seen the argument from fallacy used fairly often, but generally as a bad apologetic against theism, not a defense of atheism. In any case, yeah, it's obviously a bad argument. But targeting the bad arguments can also be argumentation from fallacy. Defeating bad arguments is functional only as correction, not as epistemology.

The argument from ignorance is inapplicable. The problem here is that the game is rigged. The formulas give "god" too much credit, as if it were a single, viable concept rather than ill defined and cryptically ambiguous. Only if we ignore the true nature of god allegations do we even have something to plug into the equations to begin with. If we don't ignore the nature of god allegations we can't even get to the first step. There's nothing of substance to work with. Very few of us recognize that because we're so heavily socialized to buy into the whole god schtick. You have to define the god variable in each instance or the formula has no meaning. You may as well formulate arguments for "aethereal atheism" (to demonstrate that it's fallacious to believe the aether doesn't exist).

The error is in the question, not the answer.

Byron

 

[Prometheus]

The error is in the question, not the answer.

I agree. God can be paradoxically defined as undefinable. Still, to claim that an illogical thing can't be is to say that logic dictates the nature of reality. Many things we call true in a scientific sense are intuitively false. Though logic is generally meant to be a mathematical system, how one makes the move from premise to conclusion is still largely intuitive.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I've seen the argument from fallacy used fairly often, but generally as a bad apologetic against theism, not a defense of atheism. In any case, yeah, it's obviously a bad argument. But targeting the bad arguments can also be argumentation from fallacy. Defeating bad arguments is functional only as correction, not as epistemology.

The argument from ignorance is inapplicable. The problem here is that the game is rigged. The formulas give "god" too much credit, as if it were a single, viable concept rather than ill defined and cryptically ambiguous. Only if we ignore the true nature of god allegations do we even have something to plug into the equations to begin with. If we don't ignore the nature of god allegations we can't even get to the first step. There's nothing of substance to work with. Very few of us recognize that because we're so heavily socialized to buy into the whole god schtick. You have to define the god variable in each instance or the formula has no meaning. You may as well formulate arguments for "aethereal atheism" (to demonstrate that it's fallacious to believe the aether doesn't exist).

The error is in the question, not the answer.

Byron

No, the error in question is the fallacious claim that:

There certainly isn't anything significant to back up the bible ... [therefore] ... strong atheism is the more logical choice.​

and your endorsement of this claim.

 

[Tiberius]

Correction:

There certainly isn't anything significant to back up the bible, and quite a lot of significance that contradicts the Bible ... [therefore] ... strong atheism is the more logical choice.

 

[Storm]

Correction:

There certainly isn't anything significant to back up the bible, and quite a lot of significance that contradicts the Bible ... [therefore] ... strong atheism is the more logical choice.

Except that you're resorting to the same false dichotomy as Pascal's Wager.

 

[lamplighter]

In the statement "There certainly isn't anything significant to back up the bible so it would seem strong atheism is the more logical choice." I never stated anything as fact to begin with. When I said "so it would seem" I was indicating a personal decision that from a lack of evidence one could conclude that Strong Atheism is not an illogical choice as compared to the belief in Yahweh as there is nothing that is currently evident leaving open the possibility for a personal God like Yahweh at this point in human history. Besides I'm Agnostic so I would require empirical evidence that asserts there is no God before I became a Strong Atheist.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Correction:

There certainly isn't anything significant to back up the bible, and quite a lot of significance that contradicts the Bible ... [therefore] ... strong atheism is the more logical choice.

It's a false dichotomy. Also, please learn what 'logical' means.

 

[rojse]

Correction:

There certainly isn't anything significant to back up the bible, and quite a lot of significance that contradicts the Bible ... [therefore] ... strong atheism is the more logical choice.

Whether the stories contained in the Bible are true or not, in terms of their historical accuracy, this neither proves nor disproves the existence of God.

 

[Tiberius]

Except that you're resorting to the same false dichotomy as Pascal's Wager.

However, while Pascal's wager is untestable in every area, there is plenty of scientific evidence for things that contradict the Bible. Such as the genesis accounts of creation and Noah's flood.

It's a false dichotomy. Also, please learn what 'logical' means.

Logical as in testable, verifiable and operating according to the established laws of nature.

Whether the stories contained in the Bible are true or not, in terms of their historical accuracy, this neither proves nor disproves the existence of God.

It would seem to disprove the existence of the Christian God. After all, if the Bible is ficticious, then what basis is there for believing in the Christian God as a real entity?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Logical as in testable, verifiable and operating according to the established laws of nature.

'That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone.

'When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'I always pay it extra.'

'Oh!' said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any other remark.

As I said: please learn what 'logical' means.

 

[SkepticX]

No, the error in question is the fallacious claim that:

There certainly isn't anything significant to back up the bible ... [therefore] ... strong atheism is the more logical choice.​

and your endorsement of this claim.

Except that I didn't endorse that claim--never made such a claim in the first place. That was your creation. I ignored it, frankly. First, I didn't make any such claim either in form or substance, and second, it's just too simplistic an error to be worth discussion in my opinion. Someone who makes that error is almost certainly being disingenuous, and even if not, unquestionably careless.

But ... here's the real problem.

To believe a stoopalcystomer doesn't exist because we haven't found any hard evidence is an argument from ignorance fallacy.

Is it though? It fits perfectly into the equation. Replace God with stoopalcystomer and the Bible with hard evidence the equation works just the same. So do you believe there's really a stoopalcystomer? If not, do you think you're committing an argument from ignorance fallacy? Why or why not?

Byron

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

To believe a stoopalcystomer doesn't exist because we haven't found any hard evidence is an argument from ignorance fallacy.

No: to claim (not believe) that a stoopalcystomer does exist because we haven't found any hard evidence against said existence is an argument from ignorance ...

 

[SkepticX]

I agree. God can be paradoxically defined as undefinable. Still, to claim that an illogical thing can't be is to say that logic dictates the nature of reality. Many things we call true in a scientific sense are intuitively false. Though logic is generally meant to be a mathematical system, how one makes the move from premise to conclusion is still largely intuitive.

Isn't it the case that in order to establish a "genuine" fallacy, the logic demonstrating the fallacy must be sound rather than just correct?

Byron

 

[SkepticX]

No: to claim (not believe) that a stoopalcystomer does exist because we haven't found any hard evidence against said existence is an argument from ignorance ...

The main point was that you can plug stoopalcystomer into the equation instead of god and replace the Bible with a suitable substitute and the formulation works just as well, demonstrating what Prometheus just pointed out. Correct logic isn't enough to validate belief. The logic must also be sound.

Byron

 

[Storm]

However, while Pascal's wager is untestable in every area, there is plenty of scientific evidence for things that contradict the Bible. Such as the genesis accounts of creation and Noah's flood.

That has nothing to do with what I said. You're resorting to a false dichotomy.

It would seem to disprove the existence of the Christian God. After all, if the Bible is ficticious, then what basis is there for believing in the Christian God as a real entity?

Not even that. Not all Christian theology is based in Literalism. Even if it were, it's still not a valid justification for strong atheism, due to the aforementioned false dichotomy as well as the logical fallacy of believing a thing to be false just because it cannot be proven to be true.

 

[logician]

Strong atheism is certainly as valid as strong theism.

 

[SkepticX]

Strong atheism is certainly as valid as strong theism.

I agree, except that strong atheism is rationally valid whereas strong theism is not. You don't have to make something up to not believe in, whereas such a fabrication, whether completely contrived or merely contrived with some linguistic and cognitive acrobatics, is required for theism.

It's just like stoopalcystomers. They're just aren't as popular as gods.

Byron

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Correct logic isn't enough to validate belief. The logic must also be sound.

Oh, the logic must be "sound" as well as "correct". Well, I guess that settles it. Thanks for sharing ...

 

[SkepticX]

Oh, the logic must be "sound" as well as "correct".

Yes.

Logic that's absolutely correct but not sound can produce absurd conclusions.

As I understand it sound logic requires that the premises be true and the epistemology solid. It's a very important distinction to understand in any case, whatever the exact terminology.

But as I pointed out, you can replace "god" with "stoopalcystomer" and your equation allegedly demonstrating the fallacy of strong atheism holds, yet I doubt you'd try to argue concluding that stoopalcystomers don't really exist is fallacious. Religion, as always (almost, anyway), gets a free pass where other ideas don't.

Byron

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... sound logic requires that the premises be true and the epistemology solid. It's a very important distinction to understand in any case, whatever the exact terminology.

All in favor of solid versus unsolid epistemology say "Aye" ...

SkepticX, we could have a long, and perhaps even fruitful, discussion on the important distiction between the logically possible and the existentially possible, but this thread is about logical fallacies, not epistemology.