The logical fallacy of atheism

[Ouroboros]

EXCUSE ME!!!! The correct termonolgoy is chromatically challenged! Color blind is our word~ :danana:

LOL!

Even "color blindness"... Sorry! Chromatically challenged have now become adjusted by the bureau of political correctness.

 

[vskipper]

To have no-belief is not the same as having belief-in-no.

The reason why your hearing is failing to distinguish the difference is because of the long training of extremisms and hard categorization of reality, common to our world today. You need to learn to see the gray areas in between black and white.

I know I am fixing to get really off topic here but what the hell (religious pun, :sorry1: )

A) I see agnostic more of the ... "God may exist but it is possible that he doesn't" & atheists as "there is no evidence of God therefore I dont believe in God"
B) I see lots of grey. For instance I wonder why people simply accept that the center of the earth is a hot core despite there never having been any physical proof. I wonder what kind of God stands on a blue platform (Exodus 24). I wonder if the real creator is some unfathamoble source of energy or if heaven and hell exist in an alternate universe. I wonder if tv is not a means of sedation and why the same chemical used in ww2 gas chambers is the now the primary ingredient in tap.water & toothpaste.

 

[vskipper]

Well, he gave us the evidence after the semi-colon... which wasn't there, so I guess it means no evidence. And as such, based on his previous hard-core extremism of interpreting the use of negatives, it must mean that he has proven himself the opposite. His missing semi-colon and lack of evidence must be evidence for the inverse of what he meant. :areyoucra Which in turn means that he gave us evidence that we were right and he was wrong, by simple omission.

Touche, & I'm an English major 4 classes from a ba

It would appear the lack of sleep is catching up. I have been awake for 19 hrs now

 

[averageJOE]

This is nothing more than a semantics debate thread.

 

[Sha'irullah]

This is nothing more than a semantics debate thread.

Not entirely. If providing proof is entirely semantics then science is Scrabble on a cosmic scale

 

[TheGunShoj]

If you say there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of El Shaddai or any similar being you are agnostic not atheist.

You can be agnostic and atheist at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive. There is no conflict there.

 

[vskipper]

You can be agnostic and atheist at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive. There is no conflict there.

Why is it not conflicting?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Why is it not conflicting?

Hint: You can both not know something and not have a belief in it at the same time.

 

[TheGunShoj]

I agree with the last sentence. Religion does give direction, sense of purpose, and moral guidelines. For an example of life without moral guidelines I recommend most of modern San Fransisco & many other major metropolitan areas. America has become more secular & murder, child molestation, etc. has increased.

Really? So our secular morals are inferior to biblical morality? Please cite verses that state that rape and slavery are immoral. Thank you.

 

[TheGunShoj]

Hint: You can both not know something and not have a belief in it at the same time.

:yes:

 

[vskipper]

Really? So our secular morals are inferior to biblical morality? Please cite verses that state that rape and slavery are immoral. Thank you.

Why does it have to be biblical unless, of course, you are assuming I'm aChristian

 

[TheGunShoj]

Why does it have to be biblical unless, of course, you are assuming I'm aChristian

I did assume. Am I wrong?

 

[Password]

God: I Am that I Am.
Jesus: Who do you say that I am?

 

[Maldini]

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....

You could replace the word God with Bigfoot or Yeti or flying spaghetti monster., and your statement would still makes sense.

Actually God is worse than those above, since God's existence will require a existence crap load of other theoires which can never be known.

 

[RitalinOhD]

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....

Your OP fails from the very beginning.

 

[outhouse]

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....

Your OP is severely flawed.

Most people do not claim god does not exist because there is no evidence.


We claim he does not exist because of the massive amount of evidence, that shows he was created by man.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

A truly scientific mind would question both view points & contemplate how to test the theory.

A truly scientific mind would recognize that the above is an artificial dichotomy which misrepresents "theory" as well as scientific methods.

 

[Bunyip]

Lacking a be7leif in something that there is no evidence for is not a fallacy, it is common sense.

A truly scientific mind would dismiss unevidenced claims.

 

[YmirGF]

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....

I've grown a bit beyond such pathetic pandering to theistic sentimentalism.

I don't need a god in my multiverse. Deal with it.

 

[s2a]

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....

Wrong.
Here ya go:
1)
re·li·gion
noun \ri-ˈli-jən\ : the belief in a god or in a group of gods
: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

Does this decribe atheism?

2)
Please provide your short list of "die-hard", "scientific-mind" atheists that question or doubt their conclusions predicate upon "faith".

WE may start with just three.

And, of course...just for fun...


Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three). In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.
The fallaciousness of arguments from ignorance does not mean that one can never possess good reasons for thinking that something does not exist, an idea captured by philosopher Bertrand Russell's teapot, a hypothetical china teapot revolving about the sun between Earth and Mars; however this would fall more duly under the arena of pragmatism, wherein a position must be demonstrated or proven in order to be upheld, and therefore the burden of proof is on the argument's proponent. See also Occam's razor ("prefer the explanation with the fewest assumptions").

Wikipedia

Whups.

You were saying?