The logical fallacy of atheism

[Sonofason]

Fair enough. I disagree.

Very well, you are certainly free to disagree.

 

[serp777]

"I went to the bathroom today," is a claim regardless of God. It is no claim about knowledge about God.

A claim that "God is unknowable" is a claim of knowledge about God. It has assigned God a property: unknowability.

For the record, I think the latter is an extension or extrapolation of agnosticism, but not in itself agnosticism.

Yes, you're right it's not agnosticism. Agnosticism doesn't make a claim that God is unknowable, but rather makes the claim that we currently don't know whether God exists. I'm not sure if you can call that a property of God though (rather it's the lack of any currently discernable properties), although it does make a claim that is relevant too God.

 

[serp777]

I experience God. I do not experience the Islamic false god Allah. God is very real to me. And I can see clearly what Allah is.

But how do you know your experiences are legitimate? No one is infallible. Honestly though, do you think you're infallible? if you think you are infallible then no one can really argue against you.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I do decide which posts I will respond to.

I see. Well if you do remember it I'd like my point responded to. I can't make you debate.

 

[Sonofason]

Yes, you're right it's not agnosticism. Agnosticism doesn't make a claim that God is unknowable, but rather makes the claim that we currently don't know whether God exists. I'm not sure if you can call that a property of God though (rather it's the lack of any currently discernable properties), although it does make a claim that is relevant too God.

1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

2: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something
Agnostic - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 

[Willamena]

Yes, you're right it's not agnosticism. Agnosticism doesn't make a claim that God is unknowable, but rather makes the claim that we currently don't know whether God exists. I'm not sure if you can call that a property of God though (rather it's the lack of any currently discernable properties), although it does make a claim that is relevant too God.

But I hope we also agree that the claim that we currently don't know whether God exists is not "no claim about god."

 

[Willamena]

1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

2: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something
Agnostic - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

3: an anti-realist.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

That is not true. Most atheists hate God.

That's not compatible.

Either they claim atheism but are in fact not atheist (which can happen) OR they don't hate God.

They MIGHT hate religion.

 

[Sonofason]

That's not compatible.

Either they claim atheism but are in fact not atheist (which can happen) OR they don't hate God.

They MIGHT hate religion.

I have argued before that many self professing atheists are not atheists at all. Many are agnostics. Many are theists that hate God. Atheism is just a word. Anyone can wear it if they choose to.

 

[serp777]

1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

2: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something
Agnostic - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

But how do you know your experiences are legitimate? No one is infallible. Honestly though, do you think you're infallible? if you think you are infallible then no one can really argue against you.

 

[Sonofason]

But how do you know your experiences are legitimate? No one is infallible. Honestly though, do you think you're infallible? if you think you are infallible then no one can really argue against you.

Unless you can show me some evidence that my experience of God is not valid then you have no business even trying to argue against me.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Unless you can show me some evidence that my experience of God is not valid then you have no business even trying to argue against me.

Show me evidence that my experience of the magical wish-granting leprechaun is not valid.

 

[Sonofason]

Show me evidence that my experience of the magical wish-granting leprechaun is not valid.

If you believe that you have experienced the magical wish-granting leprechaun, I have no cause to try to take that away from you. You know what you've experienced and what you have not experienced. I can only hope that you are being honest with me and honest with yourself.

 

[Sapiens]

Have you been touched by his noodly appendage? If you had been you'd know that your experience of any other God is not valid. I'm am honest with myself and with you, I'm just pointing out the problem with subjective views.

 

[Sonofason]

Have you been touched by his noodly appendage? If you had been you'd know that your experience of any other God is not valid.

Let us leave that which has come from the gutter to remain in the gutter.

 

[serp777]

Unless you can show me some evidence that my experience of God is not valid then you have no business even trying to argue against me.

I have good evidence; Many religious people from all over the world have claimed inconsistent divine revelation and special knowledge. Humans are clearly not infallible, and since you are human, you can be fallible as well. Humans are also capable of mental illness, hallucinations, or lying to themselves which may or may not apply to you. I rest my case.

I also find it unlikely that God has decided to focus on giving you this knowledge, when he could have just come down in a burning bush on CNN and performed a miracle to persuade everyone to convert to Christianity.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I have argued before that many self professing atheists are not atheists at all. Many are agnostics. Many are theists that hate God. Atheism is just a word. Anyone can wear it if they choose to.

I dunno about 'many', but I have no reason to doubt that there are self-proclaimed atheists who are not in fact atheists.
As you say, it's just a word, and people often try to identify with things they actually aren't, for various reasons.

 

[Sonofason]

I have good evidence; Many religious people from all over the world have claimed inconsistent divine revelation and special knowledge. Humans are clearly not infallible, and since you are human, you can be infallible as well. Humans are also capable of mental illness, hallucinations, or lying to themselves which may or may not apply to you. I rest my case.

I also find it unlikely that God has decided to focus on giving you this knowledge, when he could have just come down in a burning bush on CNN and performed a miracle to persuade everyone to convert to Christianity.

Okay, now just prove that one of these possible fallibilities actually applies to me, and you might have an argument.

 

[Sonofason]

Okay, now just prove that one of these possible fallibilities actually applies to me, and you might have an argument.

God only reveals Himself to those who love and obey Him.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If you believe that you have experienced the magical wish-granting leprechaun, I have no cause to try to take that away from you. You know what you've experienced and what you have not experienced. I can only hope that you are being honest with me and honest with yourself.

But they are still free to question whether that belief is justified or not, especially if you're going to make factual claims about that belief. They were not accusing you of being wrong, but asking you to justify your belief and establish how you know you are right. You know what you have experienced, but the question is: how do you know if what you experienced was legitimate, and if you cannot establish that, why would you believe in it any more than you would believe in other people's experiences of leprechauns, or Allah, or reincarnation?