The logical fallacy of atheism

[ImmortalFlame]

They are equal in evidence. There is zero evidence for both.

There is no such thing as 'negative' evidence.

The existence of bikes, and the fact that people ride them very regularly, makes the claim of riding one more plausible. You have no evidence of the actual RIDING of a bike, but you at least have evidence of the existence of bikes and that people ride them.

Ergo, the claim that he rode a bike is more plausible (because you possess evidence of the existence of bikes, at least) than the claim that he rode a dragon.

 

[viole]

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....

Yes, we share the same fallacy with a-bluefairists. a-mothergooists, a-boogymaninsts and a-invisibleunicornists, just to name a few.

I don't know you, but if someone seriously answers "I don't know" to the question "do invisible unicorns exist?" at a cocktail party, I might think that he had too many of those things that the house offers.

Now, why should we feel different if someone answers "I don't know" to the question "does God exist?" since God and invisible unicorns have the same objective evidence of existing?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Willamena]

Red herring.

No, just the topic of this tedious side-discussion, which if people would stop resisting and arguing irrationally against, I could drop.

 

[Willamena]

You are all most confused with regard to the definition of atheism. You speak of atheism in the context of agnostic. They're not the same. Babies lack belief in God. Rocks lack belief in God. Atheism lacks logic. Atheists reject God. Atheists believe that no God exists. Agnostics don't know if God exists. And most atheists are actually agnostics, but they hate the Christian God so much they call themselves atheists to spite the living God.

It doesn't have to be that complicated.

Atheists don't believe in god--that discounts non-conscious, non-cognitive entities, and includes those who believe no god exists. They don't believe in god for good reasons, which vary but mainly have to do with the evidence on hand. In most cases, that's not lacking logic.

There are rare atheists who understand the living god and the death of god that man, who lives only in his "knowing" of the world, practices. It's hard to pull off that argument on an Internet debate forum, though.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

They are equal in evidence. There is zero evidence for both.

There is no such thing as 'negative' evidence.

I termed it that way to make it easier to understand my point if I were to put it as a math equation. They are unequal. If we wish to specify "evidence for" then thats fine but the claims themselves are not limited merely to that.

 

[Willamena]

If we wish to specify "evidence for"...

That was, and is, and remains my argument.

 

[outhouse]

That was, and is, and remains my argument.

You do not have an argument.

You have no evidence.


Some atheist happen to have plenty to substantiate their claims with credibility.

 

[outhouse]

They are equal in evidence. There is zero evidence for both.

.

Factually in error


I never have to give you a facepalm, but here ya go.


We have evidence man created and defined gods in mythology. Factual evidence.

And ever culture defines this different. Abrahamic god, and three different cultures have distinct definitions all different, and factually all based on mythology, much of which they know nothing about.


If your ignorant to the evidence, it is not our fault.


History of ancient Israel and Judah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Israelite monotheism evolved gradually out of pre-existing beliefs and practices of the ancient world.[76] The religion of the Israelites of Iron Age I, like the Canaanite faith from which it evolved[77] and other ancient Near Eastern religions, was based on a cult of ancestors and worship of family gods (the "gods of the fathers").[78] Its major deities were not numerous – El, Asherah, and Yahweh, with Baal as a fourth god, and perhaps Shamash (the sun) in the early period.[79] By the time of the early Hebrew kings, El and Yahweh had become fused and Asherah did not continue as a separate state cult


What part of combining two previous gods into one, don't you understand?

 

[Willamena]

I might accept that an argument can be made for that plausibility is evidence for (the truth of) a claim, but that argument hasn't been yet been made, and I personally don't believe it.

 

[outhouse]

I might accept that an argument can be made for that plausibility is evidence for (the truth of) a claim, but that argument hasn't been yet been made, and I personally don't believe it.

It is not about your belief.

It is about the factual evidence that man creates deities in mythology. And the lack of evidence mythology exist in reality.


We have evidence, and your opinion means absolutely nothing.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I might accept that an argument can be made for that plausibility is evidence for (the truth of) a claim, but that argument hasn't been yet been made, and I personally don't believe it.

I'm not sure that anyone is trying to equate plausibility with evidence of the actual claim, but merely explain that not all claims are equal and some are more plausible than others. The fact is that if a friend of yours casually dropped into conversation that they went for a ride on a bike the other day, you would automatically believe them without requiring any kind of verification. Whereas, if that same friend casually dropped into conversation that they went for a ride on the back of dragon the other day, you'd probably make a confused face and ask them to repeat themselves.

This is because not all claims were equal. Even in a case where you have no evidence for either claim, your logical mind still dictates that one claim is plausible to the point that it doesn't require evidence to believe at face value, while another claim is so implausible that you simply cannot believe it at face value. It's perfectly possible that your friend could be lying to you about riding a bike, but believing that lie doesn't make you stupid or gullible - it just makes sense, based on everything you know about bikes and riding them, that riding a bike is not an exceptional claim and does not require much, if any, investigation.

At least, that's the point I'm trying to make.

 

[Willamena]

I'm not sure that anyone is trying to equate plausibility with evidence of the actual claim, but merely explain that not all claims are equal and some are more plausible than others. The fact is that if a friend of yours casually dropped into conversation that they went for a ride on a bike the other day, you would automatically believe them without requiring any kind of verification. Whereas, if that same friend casually dropped into conversation that they went for a ride on the back of dragon the other day, you'd probably make a confused face and ask them to repeat themselves.

This is because not all claims were equal. Even in a case where you have no evidence for either claim, your logical mind still dictates that one claim is plausible to the point that it doesn't require evidence to believe at face value, while another claim is so implausible that you simply cannot believe it at face value. It's perfectly possible that your friend could be lying to you about riding a bike, but believing that lie doesn't make you stupid or gullible - it just makes sense, based on everything you know about bikes and riding them, that riding a bike is not an exceptional claim and does not require much, if any, investigation.

At least, that's the point I'm trying to make.

Again, I have no argument with this.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

That was, and is, and remains my argument.

Your argument for what exactly?

 

[Desert Snake]

I'm not sure that anyone is trying to equate plausibility with evidence of the actual claim, but merely explain that not all claims are equal and some are more plausible than others. The fact is that if a friend of yours casually dropped into conversation that they went for a ride on a bike the other day, you would automatically believe them without requiring any kind of verification. Whereas, if that same friend casually dropped into conversation that they went for a ride on the back of dragon the other day, you'd probably make a confused face and ask them to repeat themselves.

This is because not all claims were equal. Even in a case where you have no evidence for either claim, your logical mind still dictates that one claim is plausible to the point that it doesn't require evidence to believe at face value, while another claim is so implausible that you simply cannot believe it at face value. It's perfectly possible that your friend could be lying to you about riding a bike, but believing that lie doesn't make you stupid or gullible - it just makes sense, based on everything you know about bikes and riding them, that riding a bike is not an exceptional claim and does not require much, if any, investigation.

At least, that's the point I'm trying to make.

Willamena is correct..the reason being in that the analogy being used isn't a good one. We don't have a "best guess" We have 'guesses'. There is no bicycle in the equation being used, it there is no 'better' assessment than deific ones, only guesses.

 

[Willamena]

Willamena is correct..the reason being in that the analogy being used isn't a good one. We don't have a "best guess" We have 'guesses'. There is no bicycle in the equation being used, it there is no 'better' assessment than deific ones, only guesses.

What are you talking about?

 

[outhouse]

What are you talking about?

who is on first, what is on second! :sarcastic

And rounding home is I don't know

 

[Jumi]

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....

An atheist can believe in life after death, just not in gods.

What would you suggest is the right method in testing to see if a god exists? I'm always willing to try.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Most people have always come to the same conclusion about whether or not we are here accidentally, and I think our logic is all basically the same, that chance alone does not adequately account for the world we see around us.

i.e. belief in God in this sense has always been a fundamentally skeptical view?

 

[Bunyip]

Most people have always come to the same conclusion about whether or not we are here accidentally, and I think our logic is all basically the same, that chance alone does not adequately account for the world we see around us.

i.e. belief in God in this sense has always been a fundamentally skeptical view?

Chance is not the alternative to God, you seem stuck on that misconception.

 

[Renascibilitas]

It is not a fallacy to say there is no pink elephant in the room when no pink elephant is evident in the room.

Really?

Keep count!