Now in terms of here he is, there he is.... there is no tangible evidence for the existence of God as it would be understood in the most basic definition. However, to say that God does not exist because of a lack of evidence is a fallacy. That fallacy is called argument from ignorance. Therefore, the die-hard atheist is practicing a belief system because they believe there is nothing after death. A truly scientific mind would question both view points & contemplate how to test the theory. Just saying....
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The logical fallacy of atheism
- Thread starter vskipper
- Start date
Sha'irullah
رسول الآلهة
Atheist do not say "God does not exist".
Atheist are not making the positive assertion YOU ARE. There is no evidence for the existence of a god hence the term Atheism (a theos/ no god). If there is no god there is no belief.
This is why an atheist knowledgeable on this will say "I do NOT belief in a god".
Atheist are not making the positive assertion YOU ARE. There is no evidence for the existence of a god hence the term Atheism (a theos/ no god). If there is no god there is no belief.
This is why an atheist knowledgeable on this will say "I do NOT belief in a god".
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Of course, most atheists understand the logical difference between saying "I believe god doesn't exist," and "I don't believe god exists," and generally apply the second meaning in regards to their atheism.
FunctionalAtheist
Hammer of Reason
I disagree! First, are we discussing the possibility of god's existence, or the possibility of mortal existance after death?
Second! Argument form ignorance is the argument that something IS true, because it HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN FALSE. It may be difficult for you, but it is the theist argument that is the argument from ignorance.
The belife that god exists, because his existence has not been disproven, IS THE ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
It is not a fallacy to say there is no pink elephant in the room when no pink elephant is evident in the room.
They actually mean pretty much the same thing, as well as, "I don't believe in god."
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Well, unless the elephant is invisible, tasteless, odorless, silent, and not made of solid matter. Then there could be a whole herd of elephants running around on your head.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
They can mean the same thing semantically, yet they don't mean the same thing logically.
Amechania
Daimona of the Helpless
How would you test for the existence of god? Which god(s)? Which theory of god? I suppose you could throw a nickel in the air and demand that god produce a heads up. If it came up tails that would clearly prove god doesn't exist. Or is hard of hearing. Or doesn't give a rat's ***.
- Most atheists that I've met do not claim that God doesn't exist; they claim that there isn't enough evidence for God to justify belief.
- It's reasonable to reject certain god-concepts based on lack of evidence if the god-concept has implications that imply physical evidence should exist. For instance, Harold Camping's God was supposed to have destroyed the Earth in 2011. The fact that we're here now suggests that his god-concept was false.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
That's why we need opportunistic charlatans....er, prophets to communicate facts about god to us.
Ah but you can test for the existence of a pink elephant. Presently we dont have the means to test for a being outside of space & time. Thus why I find the agnostic as the more reason based stance. But for kicks & giggles please explain how "i dont believe in God" or "I dont believe god exist" & "I believe God exist" from a logical/reason based point of view.
Both apply to me, though the first one applies more in an "I think the non-existence of gods is more reasonable than the existence of gods" sense, not in the "I am absolutely certain that no gods exist" sense.
FunctionalAtheist
Hammer of Reason
Actually numerous specific claims of god can be and have been disproven. This is what creates 'gaps.' When humans went to mount olympus, they disproved the claim that gods lived there. When the shroud was examined, it was disproven to be old enough to be the shroud Jeses was buried in. As gaps are filled in, the target changes. This is how the concept of god survives. The god concepts have gone from very personal deities interfering with the daily lives of humanity to obscure, generalized concpets that have no visible effect. I.e. the only gap that remains is the super-nature, or that which can not be sensed by the natural senses.
If god exists, beyond smell, sight, hearing, touch, and taste, then there is no experiement to disprove his existence. So god has finally found a safe, albiet boring and inept, place from which to BE!
Agnosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia please regard paragraph 1
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
If what you're asking is what is the logical difference between "I believe that god doesn't exist," and "I don't believe god exists," then the answer is that the first is a stated belief - in other words, "I hold the belief that god does not exist." The second isn't a stated belief, but rather merely an absence of holding a particular belief - in other words, "I do not hold the belief that god exists" - a statement which does not logically imply that one holds the belief that god doesn't exist.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Some are atheists because they claim that "God does not exist," but in general (probably way over 90%) of atheists only claim that they don't believe there is a God. It's not the same as saying "believe there is no God." See the difference?
1. "I do believe there is no God." - affirmative, active stance.
2. "I do not believe there is a God." - an agnostic stance, passive claim
You're talking about the first stance, the one in affirmative. The second one however is more of an open-ended claim. One that take the stance that "I won't believe in unicorns until you show me that they truly exists" or "Santa Claus probably doesn't exist, but if you can show me that he does, then I will believe." Sort'a thing.
So no, the majority of atheists do no commit the fallacy of argument from ignorance, some do (a few), but not the majority.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Compare the sentences:
I don't believe Santa Claus exists.
And:
I believe Santa Claus does not exist.
There's a difference in commitment, affirmation, certainty, etc. One is taking a passive stance to the subject, the other an active stance. Can you see it?