The logical fallacy of atheism

[Bunyip]

Well, I'm not sure I agree with Willemena completely. I believe that using a word in context can be helpful in ascertaining the meaning, but not always, and not necessarily so.

Sure, context can help - but Willamena's claim was that by using the word 'god' in a sentence, I had therefore defined it.

That by using a word, that gave it meaning and so it was thus defined.

I disagree, while I agree with you that context can help to figure out the definition of a term - for a complex notion such as god you can not define it's meaning just by using it in a sentence.

 

[Ouroboros]

To be fair, something having a meaning doesn't necessarily mean something has a useful meaning..

Or clear or well defined meaning.

 

[Willamena]

Interesting, but then, what value might we seek from any term that is purely subjective...especially when proffered as "truth"?

I know of none that are purely subjective. If a term is useful, once it's been defined, it is utilized objectively, because it's meant to refer to a real-world thing or concept.

It could be that I'm far too literal in this regard, for I have never been "blessed" with (religious) faith.

I retain the mindset that "god" means waay too much in multiples of terms and applications to ever be "necessarily defined" by anyone, unless they themselves have their own "understanding" of what a "god" means. Need I recall just how many denominations of "Christians" alone exist? Muslims? Jews? And that's just Judeo-Christian beliefs in a singular Jehovah/Allah. I haven't even scraped the surface of denominations that declare (or claim) their own insights as to what their "god(s)"may be, do, or even care about or choose to influence.

In "being defined," it is sufficient to have their own understanding of what a term means. This is essentially the argument that I was having earlier. It's a trivial difference of opinion about the usefulness of terms: whether they require a particular to populate the concept, and possibly agreement amongst many on which particular(s), or if a term has meaning as soon as it is defined by any person for themselves, with or without a particular, even if only by the context of the sentence in which it appears. I maintain the latter. The person who is told, "God is a man on a cloud in the sky," may initially accept that particular, but their particular if choice may change dramatically in the course of their growing understanding and grasp of non-literal concepts to populate the "god" image, so that the term has meaning shouldn't have to be slaved to particulars at all. IMO.

It may be fair to observe that each individual believer (or grouping thereof) may "claim" to "know" their own "god"...but their held "definition" is always the "right" one, first and foremost. Others may be "entitled" to hold differing opinions, but of course, the are "wrong".

Agreed.

The one advantage of an atheistic perspective?

ALL "believers" are wrong, no matter how heartfelt and earnest their espoused belief may be.

Generally, yes.

 

[Willamena]

Sure, context can help - but Willamena's claim was that by using the word 'god' in a sentence, I had therefore defined it.

That by using a word, that gave it meaning and so it was thus defined.

Sort of. By using a word in a sentence, that you mean it to be understood, that's an indicator that it has meaning. It's that, or you're deliberately spouting jibberish at people.

I disagree, while I agree with you that context can help to figure out the definition of a term - for a complex notion such as god you can not define it's meaning just by using it in a sentence.

That I wouldn't disagree with.

However, if you use it in a sentence, it has meaning whether you like it or not, whether you admit it or not. The term "god" doesn't have to be a particular for it to be defined.

 

[Nakosis]

Oh you mean

details within history is dependent on whom was teaching it.

The first they teach you in a history class is that history cannot ever be recreated.

I don't recalling hearing that before. If I had heard it from a teacher, likely I be a bit less cynical.

Plausibility of what happened however, can provide certainties on many time periods.

I keep promising myself to watch the college course on Bible history I believe you provided a link to before.

I had in mind, High School, Internet and media as sources for history. They seem mostly invested with opinion.

 

[McBell]

Well where is the necessary context for this even shorter sentence then (given this is the actual topic);

I do not believe in _________.

How is that sufficient to determine context?

It isn't.
Now please be so kind as to show where that statement was made without any context.

Let me remind you of the op - it is about atheism. Now atheism is a single word - how is that single word enough to give sufficient context to define god?

The OP:

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....

Now that we see the OP is not just the one word of "atheism"...

 

[Ouroboros]

I just wanted to add a little reading for those who are interested in the relationship between words (or more specifically "terms") and context.


The uses of context to understand meaning of words:

Introduction

When attempting to decipher the meaning of a new word, it is often useful to look at what comes before and after that word. The surrounding words can give readers helpful context clues about the meaning and structure of the new word, as well as how it is used.

Using context clues aligns with the following ELA Common Core Standard:

CCSS.ELA-Literacy.CCRA.L.4 Determine or clarify the meaning of unknown and multiple-meaning words and phrases by using context clues, analyzing meaningful word parts, and consulting general and specialized reference materials, as appropriate.

Using Context Clues to Understand Word Meanings | Reading Rockets

Also, some types of context clues:

Common Types of Context Clues

Root word and affix: People who study birds are experts in ornithology.
Contrast: Unlike mammals, birds incubate their eggs outside their bodies.
Logic: Birds are always on the lookout for predators that might harm their young.
Definition: Frugivorous birds prefer eating fruit to any other kind of food.
Example or illustration: Some birds like to build their nests in inconspicuous spots — high up in the tops of trees, well hidden by leaves.
Grammar: Many birds migrate twice each year.

(same source)

Other material saying the same thing:
Four Types of Context Clues (this is part of "testprep" on about.com, i.e. there are English tests where this question comes up, "what's a context?" "how do you use it?" etc)

Here's the "Reading Teacher's Textbook" from the government: http://www.azed.gov/english-language-learners/files/2014/02/using-context-clues-lesson.pdf (especially page 2, types of context clues, first one is "Definition". "The author explains the meaning of a word...")
(AZED is Arizona's department for education)

And more.

So... yes, a definition is a context, and context gives meaning and explains a word.

 

[Bunyip]

It isn't.
Now please be so kind as to show where that statement was made without any context.


The OP:

​

Now that we see the OP is not just the one word of "atheism"...

Your point?

 

[outhouse]

I don't recalling hearing that before. If I had heard it from a teacher, likely I be a bit less cynical.

I keep promising myself to watch the college course on Bible history I believe you provided a link to before.

I had in mind, High School, Internet and media as sources for history. They seem mostly invested with opinion.

Try that link from Yale, that is the one where professor Dale B martin describes how history is gone and time periods cannot be recovered.

Its in the first or second lecture.

 

[Sonofason]

The problem is the disparity between the enormity of the claim and the paucity of the data. If I told you that your significant other were having an affair, you'd pay no attention unless there was supporting evidence but you will accept, yea even proselytize, the existence of a supreme being with far less data then you'd require to impeach your SO's fidelity. Looks like a massive impedance mismatch to me.

The atheists keeps forgetting, believers have evidence of God. It is the atheist who does not and shall not have evidence of God. Not everyone wears your shoes.

 

[Sonofason]

Sure, context can help - but Willamena's claim was that by using the word 'god' in a sentence, I had therefore defined it.

That by using a word, that gave it meaning and so it was thus defined.

I disagree, while I agree with you that context can help to figure out the definition of a term - for a complex notion such as god you can not define it's meaning just by using it in a sentence.

It is rather deceitful for you to be using the word God, without having a clue what it means. Obviously your not being completely honest here.

 

[s2a]

I know of none that are purely subjective. If a term is useful, once it's been defined, it is utilized objectively, because it's meant to refer to a real-world thing or concept.


In "being defined," it is sufficient to have their own understanding of what a term means. This is essentially the argument that I was having earlier. It's a trivial difference of opinion about the usefulness of terms: whether they require a particular to populate the concept, and possibly agreement amongst many on which particular(s), or if a term has meaning as soon as it is defined by any person for themselves, with or without a particular, even if only by the context of the sentence in which it appears. I maintain the latter. The person who is told, "God is a man on a cloud in the sky," may initially accept that particular, but their particular if choice may change dramatically in the course of their growing understanding and grasp of non-literal concepts to populate the "god" image, so that the term has meaning shouldn't have to be slaved to particulars at all. IMO.

Maybe I'm just sorta crazy here, but in essence you argue that"if you believe/accept IT, it is then TRUE (if even only for you).

Well, that's very nice and pretty,but as you may well note, is hardly any absolute as definitive within a dictionary "definition"...which calls into question any and all "definitions" ever put forward. ANY. EVER. And...that's just kinda dumb to equate philosophical differences with etymology.

Let's be honest and fair.

If EVER there one one word more ill-defined that "god", I do not know it. To claim the/a singular understanding of that one word then must apply to all (only within your own understanding), is absurd at best...and as you may well know, offensive or worst to most other believers.

To ever claim that "my god can beat up your god", or all the variations that statement might imply, is essentially to testify that your "god" is the best.

As an atheist, I have no dog in that fight.

I really don't care.

From my perspective, there are NO winners in that debate.

Yet once more..let us harbor back to your original premise.

"God" is whatever you, as an individual, presumes, preaches, or simply accepts/claims as a ("or "the") "god"?

A pleasant thought...really. That would tend to simplify matters greatly.

With literally thousands of sectarian differences of whatever defines a "god(s)", as a skeptic, I doubt all.

But, you were saying...?

 

[McBell]

It is rather deceitful for you to be using the word God, without having a clue what it means. Obviously your not being completely honest here.

Ouch.
Have you no idea just how badly you hurt your own position with the above quote?

I bet you have no clue.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The atheists keeps forgetting, believers have evidence of God. It is the atheist who does not and shall not have evidence of God. Not everyone wears your shoes.

What evidence?

 

[Sapiens]

The atheists keeps forgetting, believers have evidence of God. It is the atheist who does not and shall not have evidence of God. Not everyone wears your shoes.

What evidence? Please bring it front and center.

Please stay out of my shoes, certain forms of insanity, as well as many other diseases are infectious.

 

[Willamena]

Maybe I'm just sorta crazy here, but in essence you argue that"if you believe/accept IT, it is then TRUE (if even only for you).

That is what believing means, yes.
believe: definition of believe in Oxford dictionary (British & World English)

Well, that's very nice and pretty,but as you may well note, is hardly any absolute as definitive within a dictionary "definition"...which calls into question any and all "definitions" ever put forward. ANY. EVER. And...that's just kinda dumb to equate philosophical differences with etymology.

Let's be honest and fair.

If EVER there one one word more ill-defined that "god", I do not know it. To claim the/a singular understanding of that one word then must apply to all (only within your own understanding), is absurd at best...and as you may well know, offensive or worst to most other believers.

To ever claim that "my god can beat up your god", or all the variations that statement might imply, is essentially to testify that your "god" is the best.

As an atheist, I have no dog in that fight.

I really don't care.

From my perspective, there are NO winners in that debate.

Yet once more..let us harbor back to your original premise.

"God" is whatever you, as an individual, presumes, preaches, or simply accepts/claims as a ("or "the") "god"?

A pleasant thought...really. That would tend to simplify matters greatly.

With literally thousands of sectarian differences of whatever defines a "god(s)", as a skeptic, I doubt all.

But, you were saying...?

...None of that.

 

[Bunyip]

It is rather deceitful for you to be using the word God, without having a clue what it means. Obviously your not being completely honest here.

 

[Desert Snake]

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....

Bingo. atheism is a statement of ignorance disguised as logical conclusion.

Aside from that, you'll find that many use atheism and agnosticism in a same manner, so that definition confusion also has to be addressed.

 

[McBell]

Bingo. atheism is a statement of ignorance disguised as logical conclusion.

Aside from that, you'll find that many use atheism and agnosticism in a same manner, so that definition confusion also has to be addressed.

*pulls out rubber raft*

 

[Willamena]

Bingo. atheism is a statement of ignorance disguised as logical conclusion.

That's not how the argument from ignorance goes.