The logical fallacy of atheism

[Sonofason]

Why would anyone have a problem 'admitting' that they disbelieve in
god due to the lack of evidence? After all it is the same reason that you disbelieve in Santa.

I didn't say they did. Perhaps you should reread what I said.

Oh, but I do believe in Santa.

"Saint Nicholas (Greek: Ἅγιος Νικόλαος, Hagios Nikólaos, Latin: Sanctus Nicolaus); (15 March 270 – 6 December 343),[3][4] also called Nikolaos of Myra, was a historic 4th-century Christian saint and Greek[5] Bishop of Myra (Demre, part of modern-day Turkey)[6] in Lycia. Because of the many miracles attributed to his intercession, he is also known as Nikolaos the Wonderworker (Νικόλαος ὁ Θαυματουργός, Nikolaos ho Thaumaturgos). He had a reputation for secret gift-giving, such as putting coins in the shoes of those who left them out for him, and thus became the model for Santa Claus, whose modern name comes from the Dutch Sinterklaas, itself from a series of elisions and corruptions of the transliteration of "Saint Nikolaos". His reputation evolved among the faithful, as was common for early Christian saints."
Saint Nicholas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Sonofason]

I think what Sonofason is getting at is that atheists do not engage in belief. We are inclined to say something on the order of, "given the utter lack of evidence it is rather improbable that any gods exist." But the real point is that we are all atheists together when it comes to Zeus or Osiris or Jupiter, I just carry it one god further than do a lot of you.

No you couldn't be further from the truth.

I believe most atheists believe deep down that God exists, but they, for various reasons hate Him.

Other atheists, I believe hate the idea of God, and so they reject the notion of God altogether, despite any possible evidence for God's existence.

And then there are a few confused atheists who will not have a belief in God because they believe they lack evidence for God's existence. But these folks are actually agnostics. They don't know if there is a God or not. Due to faulty reasoning however, they choose the side of disbelief because they think that like a pink elephant in the room, God is something that ought to be seen with the eyes.

The atheist that hates God usually will not admit his hatred for God. He claims to lack belief in God due to a lack of evidence for God, because that is a more reasonable stance to take.

 

[Willamena]

Add to that, ancient man lived in a world of mythology when these gods were solely defined by man.

Wow, ancient man was stupid, eh?

 

[Alceste]

Just gonna jump to the end here - sorry I didn't read the thread.

I have considered not only the absence of evidence that god/s do/es not exist, but also an abundance of positive evidence (i.e. from psychology, history and neurology) that all gods are imaginary. I can consider more than one thing at a time, see?

 

[Sonofason]

Lack of evidence is sufficient reason to believe that something doesn't exist.

Not really. If you lack evidence regarding anything, you should reserve judgment about that thing until you have some evidence regarding that particular thing. Anything less is unreasonable.

 

[Sapiens]

No you couldn't be further from the truth.

I believe most atheists believe deep down that God exists, but they, for various reasons hate Him.

Other atheists, I believe hate the idea of God, and so they reject the notion of God altogether, despite any possible evidence for God's existence.

And then there are a few confused atheists who will not have a belief in God because they believe they lack evidence for God's existence. But these folks are actually agnostics. They don't know if there is a God or not. Due to faulty reasoning however, they choose the side of disbelief because they think that like a pink elephant in the room, God is something that ought to be seen with the eyes.

The atheist that hates God usually will not admit his hatred for God. He claims to lack belief in God due to a lack of evidence for God, because that is a more reasonable stance to take.

And you support these wild and crazy beliefs with what data? Oh ... no data? Well ... that's typical and completely expected. You don't need data to reach a conclusion, we already know that, faith is more than enough to convince you of the strangest things.

Have you ever stopped to consider that it is quite impossible to hate that which does not exist? It might be possible for some people to hate some truly stupid people who hold ludicrous beliefs that interfere with the progress of knowledge and mankind, but to hate the nonexistent? I think not.

 

[Sonofason]

Wow, ancient man was stupid, eh?

I never understood that line of reasoning. I thought evolution was a slow process, taking millions of years, and here we got a bunch of geniuses in less than 2,000 years. It amazes me.

 

[Sonofason]

And you support these wild and crazy beliefs with what data? Oh ... no data? Well ... that's typical and completely expected. You don't need data to reach a conclusion, we already know that, faith is more than enough to convince you of the strangest things.

Have you ever stopped to consider that it is quite impossible to hate that which does not exist? It might be possible for some people to hate some truly stupid people who hold ludicrous beliefs that interfere with the progress of knowledge and mankind, but to hate the nonexistent? I think not.

I believe in God because I experience Him.

I now believe in your existence as well, because I've now experienced your existence.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Not really. If you lack evidence regarding anything, you should reserve judgment about that thing until you have some evidence regarding that particular thing. Anything less is unreasonable.

Congratulations on agreeing with him, even though you don't realize it.
get are only two states, you can believe in something or not. Everything else is just degrees of one of those states.

I'm curious, what difference do you see between holding off judgment on something, and not currently believing.
When in hold of judgment on something, it seems to me, that while withholding judgment, I'm not believing in it...

So yes, if you withhold your opinion on something, you are not currently believing in it...
If I'm not sure if there's a Bigfoot, then I don't believe in it, until I get enough evidence to believe in it. I can even get evidence that causes me to reluctantly believe in it, but that is still belief..

 

[Sapiens]

Delusion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary. As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, confabulation, dogma, illusion, or other effects of perception.

Delusions typically occur in the context of neurological or mental illness, although they are not tied to any particular disease and have been found to occur in the context of many pathological states (both physical and mental). However, they are of particular diagnostic importance in psychotic disorders including schizophrenia, paraphrenia, manic episodes of bipolar disorder, and psychotic depression.


Just something to consider as you experience Him.

 

[RitalinOhD]

No you couldn't be further from the truth.

I believe most atheists believe deep down that God exists, but they, for various reasons hate Him.

Other atheists, I believe hate the idea of God, and so they reject the notion of God altogether, despite any possible evidence for God's existence.

And then there are a few confused atheists who will not have a belief in God because they believe they lack evidence for God's existence. But these folks are actually agnostics. They don't know if there is a God or not. Due to faulty reasoning however, they choose the side of disbelief because they think that like a pink elephant in the room, God is something that ought to be seen with the eyes.

The atheist that hates God usually will not admit his hatred for God. He claims to lack belief in God due to a lack of evidence for God, because that is a more reasonable stance to take.

Complete nonsense.

Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but that opinion is based on pure conjecture.

 

[serp777]

The term God does have a meaning and certain definitions in a given context.

The word you invented is not a term since it doesn't have a definition. Give it a definition first, then it's a term.

No one has agreed on a definition. All religions disagree, and people within religions disagree with each other. It has no definition because none has been shown to be acceptable or accurate, since you cannot know what is accurate. God is not a term since it has no agreed definition.

The string of letters I gave has meaning in a given context--like a context or definition I can arbitrarily make up for it.

 

[Willamena]

No one has agreed on a definition. All religions disagree, and people within religions disagree with each other. It has no definition because none has been shown to be acceptable or accurate, since you cannot know what is accurate. God is not a term since it has no agreed definition.

The string of letters I gave has meaning in a given context--like a context or definition I can arbitrarily make up for it.

Agreeing is irrelevant.

If you were the only human left on earth, would it go undefined because there was no one left to agree with you?

 

[Willamena]

are only two states, you can believe in something or not.

You can believe that, or not, but if you do, there's no "degrees."

 

[Willamena]

Not really. If you lack evidence regarding anything, you should reserve judgment about that thing until you have some evidence regarding that particular thing. Anything less is unreasonable.

I disagree. Whether or not you believe in something has no impact on whether or not it is the case. We are not obligated to believe in things because they are the case. only because we find them to be the case.

 

[Willamena]

The term God does have a meaning and certain definitions in a given context.

The word you invented is not a term since it doesn't have a definition. Give it a definition first, then it's a term.

Agreed; you can make up any word, that doesn't make it a term.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

You can believe that, or not, but if you do, there's no "degrees."

I would respectfully disagree.
If there is a boxing match between Mike Tyson and Seth Green. I would believe that Mike Tyson would win. I would believe that to a high degree of certainty.

If there was a match between Mike Tyson and Evander Holyfield, I may still believe Tyson would win, but could harbor stronger doubt in that match vs the first.
In both cases, I believe mike will win but not to the same degree of certainty.

 

[Willamena]

I would respectfully disagree.
If there is a boxing match between Mike Tyson and Seth Green. I would believe that Mike Tyson would win. I would believe that to a high degree of certainty.

If there was a match between Mike Tyson and Evander Holyfield, I may still believe Tyson would win, but could harbor stronger doubt in that match vs the first.
In both cases, I believe mike will win but not to the same degree of certainty.

Predictions are lovely, but they are not beliefs. Certainty doesn't determine belief, truth does. (Edit: Forgive my Aristolianism.)

 

[Sapiens]

Predictions are lovely, but they are not beliefs. Certainty doesn't determine belief, truth does. (Edit: Forgive my Aristolianism.)

Truth determines belief? If only that were true.

 

[serp777]

Agreeing is irrelevant.

If you were the only human left on earth, would it go undefined because there was no one left to agree with you?

Lol what? Agreeing is the way we make definitions. How do you think languages came about in the first place? People agreed on a common way to communicate. In what way is that irrelevant?

The last person on the earth wouldn't need language or definitions anyways so your point is moot.