Total Posts:102|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The logical fallacy of atheism

Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 5:58:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Atheists say atheism is a default position because of a lack of evidence to believe in God, but fail to realize they require evidence for their contention that people should not believe in God/a divine reality, according to their own philosophy of evidentialism. This is a fallacy of exclusion.

Without evidence,, both propositions become false under the atheist world-view, and only agnosticism becomes viable.
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 6:01:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 5:58:29 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheists say atheism is a default position because of a lack of evidence to believe in God, but fail to realize they require evidence for their contention that people should not believe in God/a divine reality, according to their own philosophy of evidentialism. This is a fallacy of exclusion.

Without evidence,, both propositions become false under the atheist world-view, and only agnosticism becomes viable.

You are the funniest troll on here.

Thanks so much for the laughs.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 6:03:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 6:01:04 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 9/13/2014 5:58:29 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheists say atheism is a default position because of a lack of evidence to believe in God, but fail to realize they require evidence for their contention that people should not believe in God/a divine reality, according to their own philosophy of evidentialism. This is a fallacy of exclusion.

Without evidence,, both propositions become false under the atheist world-view, and only agnosticism becomes viable.

You are the funniest troll on here.

Coming from you, that is truly hilarious.

Thanks so much for the laughs.

Thanks so much for defending atheism with intellectual rigour, rather than ad hominem.
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 10:32:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 5:58:29 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheists say atheism is a default position because of a lack of evidence to believe in God, but fail to realize they require evidence for their contention that people should not believe in God/a divine reality, according to their own philosophy of evidentialism. This is a fallacy of exclusion.

Without evidence,, both propositions become false under the atheist world-view, and only agnosticism becomes viable.

There is a God - a claim (requires evidence)
People should not believe in God - not a claim (an exhortation)

Anything else?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 11:04:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 5:58:29 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheists say atheism is a default position because of a lack of evidence to believe in God, but fail to realize they require evidence for their contention that people should not believe in God/a divine reality, according to their own philosophy of evidentialism. This is a fallacy of exclusion.

Do you believe that people should not be willingly stupid? What evidence can you provide for that contention?

Without evidence,, both propositions become false under the atheist world-view, and only agnosticism becomes viable.

You already acknowledged atheism from an atheist's view as being "a lack of evidence to believe in God", so what definition of agnosticism are you using that differs?
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 11:23:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 5:58:29 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheists say atheism is a default position because of a lack of evidence to believe in God, but fail to realize they require evidence for their contention that people should not believe in God/a divine reality, according to their own philosophy of evidentialism. This is a fallacy of exclusion.

Without evidence,, both propositions become false under the atheist world-view, and only agnosticism becomes viable.

Agnosticism is atheism.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 2:44:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 5:58:29 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheists say atheism is a default position because of a lack of evidence to believe in God, but fail to realize they require evidence for their contention that people should not believe in God/a divine reality, according to their own philosophy of evidentialism. This is a fallacy of exclusion.

Without evidence,, both propositions become false under the atheist world-view, and only agnosticism becomes viable.

Non-Existence is indicated by a lack of evidence. How completely devoid of intellect must one be not to recognize that?

How do you know there is no pride of lions in your living room?
How do you know there's no rattlesnake in your pocket?

Do you have evidence that these things don't exist, or do you just have a lack of evidence that they do? THINK!
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 2:47:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 10:32:54 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 9/13/2014 5:58:29 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheists say atheism is a default position because of a lack of evidence to believe in God, but fail to realize they require evidence for their contention that people should not believe in God/a divine reality, according to their own philosophy of evidentialism. This is a fallacy of exclusion.

Without evidence,, both propositions become false under the atheist world-view, and only agnosticism becomes viable.

There is a God - a claim (requires evidence)
People should not believe in God - not a claim (an exhortation)

Anything else?

An extortion that lacks reason, which means that it lacks reasoning, and by result lacks logic or evidence.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 2:48:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 11:04:18 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/13/2014 5:58:29 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheists say atheism is a default position because of a lack of evidence to believe in God, but fail to realize they require evidence for their contention that people should not believe in God/a divine reality, according to their own philosophy of evidentialism. This is a fallacy of exclusion.

Do you believe that people should not be willingly stupid? What evidence can you provide for that contention?

Without evidence,, both propositions become false under the atheist world-view, and only agnosticism becomes viable.

You already acknowledged atheism from an atheist's view as being "a lack of evidence to believe in God", so what definition of agnosticism are you using that differs?

Are there arguments that supports that position? If not, then it is not rationally defended or justified.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 2:51:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 11:23:13 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 9/13/2014 5:58:29 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheists say atheism is a default position because of a lack of evidence to believe in God, but fail to realize they require evidence for their contention that people should not believe in God/a divine reality, according to their own philosophy of evidentialism. This is a fallacy of exclusion.

Without evidence,, both propositions become false under the atheist world-view, and only agnosticism becomes viable.

Agnosticism is atheism.

Not necessarily a type of Atheism. It is a lack of conviction.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 2:52:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 2:44:58 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/13/2014 5:58:29 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheists say atheism is a default position because of a lack of evidence to believe in God, but fail to realize they require evidence for their contention that people should not believe in God/a divine reality, according to their own philosophy of evidentialism. This is a fallacy of exclusion.

Without evidence,, both propositions become false under the atheist world-view, and only agnosticism becomes viable.

Non-Existence is indicated by a lack of evidence. How completely devoid of intellect must one be not to recognize that?

How do you know there is no pride of lions in your living room?
How do you know there's no rattlesnake in your pocket?

Do you have evidence that these things don't exist, or do you just have a lack of evidence that they do? THINK!

1- If there are lions in my room, then I should see them.
2- I can't see any lions in my room.
C: Therefore, there are no lions in my room.

What we are asking of you is to provide an argument rather than being a broken record and repeating: There iz no evidence! That is nothing but an assertion.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 2:57:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 2:52:54 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 9/13/2014 2:44:58 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/13/2014 5:58:29 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheists say atheism is a default position because of a lack of evidence to believe in God, but fail to realize they require evidence for their contention that people should not believe in God/a divine reality, according to their own philosophy of evidentialism. This is a fallacy of exclusion.

Without evidence,, both propositions become false under the atheist world-view, and only agnosticism becomes viable.

Non-Existence is indicated by a lack of evidence. How completely devoid of intellect must one be not to recognize that?

How do you know there is no pride of lions in your living room?
How do you know there's no rattlesnake in your pocket?

Do you have evidence that these things don't exist, or do you just have a lack of evidence that they do? THINK!

1- If there are lions in my room, then I should see them.
2- I can't see any lions in my room.
C: Therefore, there are no lions in my room.

What we are asking of you is to provide an argument rather than being a broken record and repeating: There iz no evidence! That is nothing but an assertion.

Well DF, its al well and good to lecture about the need for evidence, unless of course you actually have to produce some to support your claim ... and you have none ... THEN, its merely, to quote: People should not believe in God - not a claim (an exhortation) [an exhortation without evidence]

Belief without evidence ... that its atheism these days ... what are we to make of that?

[probably that there is a God]
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 3:01:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 2:51:07 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 9/13/2014 11:23:13 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 9/13/2014 5:58:29 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheists say atheism is a default position because of a lack of evidence to believe in God, but fail to realize they require evidence for their contention that people should not believe in God/a divine reality, according to their own philosophy of evidentialism. This is a fallacy of exclusion.

Without evidence,, both propositions become false under the atheist world-view, and only agnosticism becomes viable.

Agnosticism is atheism.

Not necessarily a type of Atheism. It is a lack of conviction.
What is the difference between the two?
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 3:07:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 2:57:25 PM, neutral wrote:
At 9/13/2014 2:52:54 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 9/13/2014 2:44:58 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/13/2014 5:58:29 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheists say atheism is a default position because of a lack of evidence to believe in God, but fail to realize they require evidence for their contention that people should not believe in God/a divine reality, according to their own philosophy of evidentialism. This is a fallacy of exclusion.

Without evidence,, both propositions become false under the atheist world-view, and only agnosticism becomes viable.

Non-Existence is indicated by a lack of evidence. How completely devoid of intellect must one be not to recognize that?

How do you know there is no pride of lions in your living room?
How do you know there's no rattlesnake in your pocket?

Do you have evidence that these things don't exist, or do you just have a lack of evidence that they do? THINK!

1- If there are lions in my room, then I should see them.
2- I can't see any lions in my room.
C: Therefore, there are no lions in my room.

What we are asking of you is to provide an argument rather than being a broken record and repeating: There iz no evidence! That is nothing but an assertion.

Well DF, its al well and good to lecture about the need for evidence, unless of course you actually have to produce some to support your claim ... and you have none ... THEN, its merely, to quote: People should not believe in God - not a claim (an exhortation) [an exhortation without evidence]

Belief without evidence ... that its atheism these days ... what are we to make of that?

[probably that there is a God]

It's disbelief due to the lack of evidence... you know, the same thing you apply to the sperm whale in your bath tub.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 3:10:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 2:48:37 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 9/13/2014 11:04:18 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/13/2014 5:58:29 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheists say atheism is a default position because of a lack of evidence to believe in God, but fail to realize they require evidence for their contention that people should not believe in God/a divine reality, according to their own philosophy of evidentialism. This is a fallacy of exclusion.

Do you believe that people should not be willingly stupid? What evidence can you provide for that contention?

Without evidence,, both propositions become false under the atheist world-view, and only agnosticism becomes viable.

You already acknowledged atheism from an atheist's view as being "a lack of evidence to believe in God", so what definition of agnosticism are you using that differs?

Are there arguments that supports that position? If not, then it is not rationally defended or justified.

What are you talking about? I asked what definition of agnosticism he was using and you respond by asking whether that position is justified. Please try again.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 3:29:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 3:01:14 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 9/13/2014 2:51:07 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 9/13/2014 11:23:13 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 9/13/2014 5:58:29 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheists say atheism is a default position because of a lack of evidence to believe in God, but fail to realize they require evidence for their contention that people should not believe in God/a divine reality, according to their own philosophy of evidentialism. This is a fallacy of exclusion.

Without evidence,, both propositions become false under the atheist world-view, and only agnosticism becomes viable.

Agnosticism is atheism.

Not necessarily a type of Atheism. It is a lack of conviction.
What is the difference between the two?

Lol! Atheism is a lack of conviction. I am done.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 3:30:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 3:07:12 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/13/2014 2:57:25 PM, neutral wrote:
At 9/13/2014 2:52:54 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 9/13/2014 2:44:58 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/13/2014 5:58:29 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheists say atheism is a default position because of a lack of evidence to believe in God, but fail to realize they require evidence for their contention that people should not believe in God/a divine reality, according to their own philosophy of evidentialism. This is a fallacy of exclusion.

Without evidence,, both propositions become false under the atheist world-view, and only agnosticism becomes viable.

Non-Existence is indicated by a lack of evidence. How completely devoid of intellect must one be not to recognize that?

How do you know there is no pride of lions in your living room?
How do you know there's no rattlesnake in your pocket?

Do you have evidence that these things don't exist, or do you just have a lack of evidence that they do? THINK!

1- If there are lions in my room, then I should see them.
2- I can't see any lions in my room.
C: Therefore, there are no lions in my room.

What we are asking of you is to provide an argument rather than being a broken record and repeating: There iz no evidence! That is nothing but an assertion.

Well DF, its al well and good to lecture about the need for evidence, unless of course you actually have to produce some to support your claim ... and you have none ... THEN, its merely, to quote: People should not believe in God - not a claim (an exhortation) [an exhortation without evidence]

Belief without evidence ... that its atheism these days ... what are we to make of that?

[probably that there is a God]

It's disbelief due to the lack of evidence... you know, the same thing you apply to the sperm whale in your bath tub.

Assertion that lacks reasoning. Provide an argument for it to not be equivalent to an emotional opinion.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 3:32:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 3:10:03 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/13/2014 2:48:37 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 9/13/2014 11:04:18 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/13/2014 5:58:29 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheists say atheism is a default position because of a lack of evidence to believe in God, but fail to realize they require evidence for their contention that people should not believe in God/a divine reality, according to their own philosophy of evidentialism. This is a fallacy of exclusion.

Do you believe that people should not be willingly stupid? What evidence can you provide for that contention?

Without evidence,, both propositions become false under the atheist world-view, and only agnosticism becomes viable.

You already acknowledged atheism from an atheist's view as being "a lack of evidence to believe in God", so what definition of agnosticism are you using that differs?

Are there arguments that supports that position? If not, then it is not rationally defended or justified.

What are you talking about? I asked what definition of agnosticism he was using and you respond by asking whether that position is justified. Please try again.

You said that Atheism is a, and I quote, "a lack of evidence to believe in God".

I mean, are you serious? As I said, that means your position is not rational, justified, or based on logic or evidence.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 3:46:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 3:32:19 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 9/13/2014 3:10:03 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/13/2014 2:48:37 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 9/13/2014 11:04:18 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/13/2014 5:58:29 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheists say atheism is a default position because of a lack of evidence to believe in God, but fail to realize they require evidence for their contention that people should not believe in God/a divine reality, according to their own philosophy of evidentialism. This is a fallacy of exclusion.

Do you believe that people should not be willingly stupid? What evidence can you provide for that contention?

Without evidence,, both propositions become false under the atheist world-view, and only agnosticism becomes viable.

You already acknowledged atheism from an atheist's view as being "a lack of evidence to believe in God", so what definition of agnosticism are you using that differs?

Are there arguments that supports that position? If not, then it is not rationally defended or justified.

What are you talking about? I asked what definition of agnosticism he was using and you respond by asking whether that position is justified. Please try again.

You said that Atheism is a, and I quote, "a lack of evidence to believe in God".

I mean, are you serious? As I said, that means your position is not rational, justified, or based on logic or evidence.

Is disbelief in fairies not based on the lack of evidence for fairies? How is that not logical, rational and justified?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 3:49:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 3:46:12 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/13/2014 3:32:19 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 9/13/2014 3:10:03 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/13/2014 2:48:37 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 9/13/2014 11:04:18 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/13/2014 5:58:29 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheists say atheism is a default position because of a lack of evidence to believe in God, but fail to realize they require evidence for their contention that people should not believe in God/a divine reality, according to their own philosophy of evidentialism. This is a fallacy of exclusion.

Do you believe that people should not be willingly stupid? What evidence can you provide for that contention?

Without evidence,, both propositions become false under the atheist world-view, and only agnosticism becomes viable.

You already acknowledged atheism from an atheist's view as being "a lack of evidence to believe in God", so what definition of agnosticism are you using that differs?

Are there arguments that supports that position? If not, then it is not rationally defended or justified.

What are you talking about? I asked what definition of agnosticism he was using and you respond by asking whether that position is justified. Please try again.

You said that Atheism is a, and I quote, "a lack of evidence to believe in God".

I mean, are you serious? As I said, that means your position is not rational, justified, or based on logic or evidence.

Is disbelief in fairies not based on the lack of evidence for fairies? How is that not logical, rational and justified?

The belief that fairies do not exist is based on a logic argument: Modus tollens (Denying the consequent), not an argument from ignorance or special pleading, ie. fallacies.

Well, go ahead and make Atheism logical, rational, and justified.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 3:59:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 3:49:46 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 9/13/2014 3:46:12 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/13/2014 3:32:19 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 9/13/2014 3:10:03 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/13/2014 2:48:37 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 9/13/2014 11:04:18 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/13/2014 5:58:29 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheists say atheism is a default position because of a lack of evidence to believe in God, but fail to realize they require evidence for their contention that people should not believe in God/a divine reality, according to their own philosophy of evidentialism. This is a fallacy of exclusion.

Do you believe that people should not be willingly stupid? What evidence can you provide for that contention?

Without evidence,, both propositions become false under the atheist world-view, and only agnosticism becomes viable.

You already acknowledged atheism from an atheist's view as being "a lack of evidence to believe in God", so what definition of agnosticism are you using that differs?

Are there arguments that supports that position? If not, then it is not rationally defended or justified.

What are you talking about? I asked what definition of agnosticism he was using and you respond by asking whether that position is justified. Please try again.

You said that Atheism is a, and I quote, "a lack of evidence to believe in God".

I mean, are you serious? As I said, that means your position is not rational, justified, or based on logic or evidence.

Is disbelief in fairies not based on the lack of evidence for fairies? How is that not logical, rational and justified?

The belief that fairies do not exist is based on a logic argument: Modus tollens (Denying the consequent), not an argument from ignorance or special pleading, ie. fallacies.

Well, go ahead and make Atheism logical, rational, and justified.

No, disbelief in fairies is based on the fact that there is no evidence for fairies. Disbelief that there is a Cessna 150 in your living room is based on the lack of evidence for a Cessna 150 in your loving room. When you prepare to go shopping and check your refrigerator, your decision to buy cheese is based on the lack of evidence for cheese in your refrigerator. And when you're driving to the store and stop at a stop sign, your decision to continue through the intersection is based on the lack of evidence for cross-traffic in the intersection. Your decision to continue on your way is not an "argument from ignorance".

The determination that things are not there, or do not exist, based on the lack of evidence for them is a staple throughout your day, every day. The only time you deny this is when it comes to the realization that it is therefore logical to disbelieve in God, as there is no evidence for God.

The ONLY way we can know of the existence of ANYTHING, is by evidence for that thing. Anything suggested to exist for which there is no evidence, is rightly and logically considered, a myth.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 4:17:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 3:07:12 PM, Beastt wrote:

It's disbelief due to the lack of evidence... you know, the same thing you apply to the sperm whale in your bath tub.

Thank you for the exposition into atheism as per the OP.

Atheism, or Satanism, if correct because of absolutely no evidence ... just ignoring yours while presenting none of ours, lest you count discredited scholars at any rate.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 4:52:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 3:59:51 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/13/2014 3:49:46 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 9/13/2014 3:46:12 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/13/2014 3:32:19 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 9/13/2014 3:10:03 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/13/2014 2:48:37 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 9/13/2014 11:04:18 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/13/2014 5:58:29 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheists say atheism is a default position because of a lack of evidence to believe in God, but fail to realize they require evidence for their contention that people should not believe in God/a divine reality, according to their own philosophy of evidentialism. This is a fallacy of exclusion.

Do you believe that people should not be willingly stupid? What evidence can you provide for that contention?

Without evidence,, both propositions become false under the atheist world-view, and only agnosticism becomes viable.

You already acknowledged atheism from an atheist's view as being "a lack of evidence to believe in God", so what definition of agnosticism are you using that differs?

Are there arguments that supports that position? If not, then it is not rationally defended or justified.

What are you talking about? I asked what definition of agnosticism he was using and you respond by asking whether that position is justified. Please try again.

You said that Atheism is a, and I quote, "a lack of evidence to believe in God".

I mean, are you serious? As I said, that means your position is not rational, justified, or based on logic or evidence.

Is disbelief in fairies not based on the lack of evidence for fairies? How is that not logical, rational and justified?

The belief that fairies do not exist is based on a logic argument: Modus tollens (Denying the consequent), not an argument from ignorance or special pleading, ie. fallacies.

Well, go ahead and make Atheism logical, rational, and justified.

No, disbelief in fairies is based on the fact that there is no evidence for fairies. Disbelief that there is a Cessna 150 in your living room is based on the lack of evidence for a Cessna 150 in your loving room. When you prepare to go shopping and check your refrigerator, your decision to buy cheese is based on the lack of evidence for cheese in your refrigerator. And when you're driving to the store and stop at a stop sign, your decision to continue through the intersection is based on the lack of evidence for cross-traffic in the intersection. Your decision to continue on your way is not an "argument from ignorance".

The determination that things are not there, or do not exist, based on the lack of evidence for them is a staple throughout your day, every day. The only time you deny this is when it comes to the realization that it is therefore logical to disbelieve in God, as there is no evidence for God.

The ONLY way we can know of the existence of ANYTHING, is by evidence for that thing. Anything suggested to exist for which there is no evidence, is rightly and logically considered, a myth.

All your examples are concluded using denying the consequence. P implies Q, but Q is false, therefore P is false.
If you oversee a park behind the window of a building, you can't conclude that there are no insects using using sight, as the premise "If there are insects, then I should see them" is not valid.

Just answer this question: Do you believe the fallacy of an argument from ignorance is not a fallacy? Yes or no would do.

So scientists believed Dark Matter and Higgs boson to be myths?
How do you know the existence of historical, mathematical, and logical truths?

Your statement that there is no evidence is an assertion, in which you have an obligation to give reasons in the form of logic and evidence to justify it.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 5:08:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 4:52:02 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 9/13/2014 3:59:51 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/13/2014 3:49:46 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 9/13/2014 3:46:12 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/13/2014 3:32:19 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 9/13/2014 3:10:03 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/13/2014 2:48:37 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 9/13/2014 11:04:18 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/13/2014 5:58:29 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheists say atheism is a default position because of a lack of evidence to believe in God, but fail to realize they require evidence for their contention that people should not believe in God/a divine reality, according to their own philosophy of evidentialism. This is a fallacy of exclusion.

Do you believe that people should not be willingly stupid? What evidence can you provide for that contention?

Without evidence,, both propositions become false under the atheist world-view, and only agnosticism becomes viable.

You already acknowledged atheism from an atheist's view as being "a lack of evidence to believe in God", so what definition of agnosticism are you using that differs?

Are there arguments that supports that position? If not, then it is not rationally defended or justified.

What are you talking about? I asked what definition of agnosticism he was using and you respond by asking whether that position is justified. Please try again.

You said that Atheism is a, and I quote, "a lack of evidence to believe in God".

I mean, are you serious? As I said, that means your position is not rational, justified, or based on logic or evidence.

Is disbelief in fairies not based on the lack of evidence for fairies? How is that not logical, rational and justified?

The belief that fairies do not exist is based on a logic argument: Modus tollens (Denying the consequent), not an argument from ignorance or special pleading, ie. fallacies.

Well, go ahead and make Atheism logical, rational, and justified.

No, disbelief in fairies is based on the fact that there is no evidence for fairies. Disbelief that there is a Cessna 150 in your living room is based on the lack of evidence for a Cessna 150 in your loving room. When you prepare to go shopping and check your refrigerator, your decision to buy cheese is based on the lack of evidence for cheese in your refrigerator. And when you're driving to the store and stop at a stop sign, your decision to continue through the intersection is based on the lack of evidence for cross-traffic in the intersection. Your decision to continue on your way is not an "argument from ignorance".

The determination that things are not there, or do not exist, based on the lack of evidence for them is a staple throughout your day, every day. The only time you deny this is when it comes to the realization that it is therefore logical to disbelieve in God, as there is no evidence for God.

The ONLY way we can know of the existence of ANYTHING, is by evidence for that thing. Anything suggested to exist for which there is no evidence, is rightly and logically considered, a myth.

All your examples are concluded using denying the consequence. P implies Q, but Q is false, therefore P is false.
Actually, it's known as "denying the consequent and it's a a valid argument form and a rule of inference.

If you oversee a park behind the window of a building, you can't conclude that there are no insects using using sight, as the premise "If there are insects, then I should see them" is not valid.
No one has implied restricting forms of evidence to the visual.

Just answer this question: Do you believe the fallacy of an argument from ignorance is not a fallacy? Yes or no would do.
I believe you are misunderstanding it, as in the way you are presenting it, an empty garage is not indicative of no car being in the garage. That is obviously incorrect. Are you so devoid of reason that you can't understand that?

So scientists believed Dark Matter and Higgs boson to be myths?
We have evidence for Dark Matter, and have confirmed the existence of the Higgs boson. Both were originally conceived on evidence.

How do you know the existence of historical, mathematical, and logical truths?
Evidence and demonstrability (more objective evidence). Do you have someone who takes care of your every daily need? Or do you have to find your own shoes, dress yourself, drive your own car, etc? Unless someone takes care of virtually everything for you, you cannot escape the need to utilize the very premise you're suggesting to be consistent with an argument from ignorance. Have you ever realized you were missing a sock? How did you know? Have you ever misplaced your keys? How did you know they weren't where you usually keep them. This isn't rocket science, and shouldn't be wedged into any over complex analysis. You use these premise multiple times, each and every day. But now you're seeing that they degrade your argument for God, so you attempt to argue against them. That's dishonest.

Your statement that there is no evidence is an assertion, in which you have an obligation to give reasons in the form of logic and evidence to justify it.
A lack of evidence is self-evidence. If you left your car in the garage, and someone stole it, do the police require you to prove that the car isn't in the garage? Don't be stupid.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 5:49:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 5:08:33 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/13/2014 4:52:02 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 9/13/2014 3:59:51 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/13/2014 3:49:46 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 9/13/2014 3:46:12 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/13/2014 3:32:19 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 9/13/2014 3:10:03 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/13/2014 2:48:37 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 9/13/2014 11:04:18 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/13/2014 5:58:29 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheists say atheism is a default position because of a lack of evidence to believe in God, but fail to realize they require evidence for their contention that people should not believe in God/a divine reality, according to their own philosophy of evidentialism. This is a fallacy of exclusion.

Do you believe that people should not be willingly stupid? What evidence can you provide for that contention?

Without evidence,, both propositions become false under the atheist world-view, and only agnosticism becomes viable.

You already acknowledged atheism from an atheist's view as being "a lack of evidence to believe in God", so what definition of agnosticism are you using that differs?

Are there arguments that supports that position? If not, then it is not rationally defended or justified.

What are you talking about? I asked what definition of agnosticism he was using and you respond by asking whether that position is justified. Please try again.

You said that Atheism is a, and I quote, "a lack of evidence to believe in God".

I mean, are you serious? As I said, that means your position is not rational, justified, or based on logic or evidence.

Is disbelief in fairies not based on the lack of evidence for fairies? How is that not logical, rational and justified?

The belief that fairies do not exist is based on a logic argument: Modus tollens (Denying the consequent), not an argument from ignorance or special pleading, ie. fallacies.

Well, go ahead and make Atheism logical, rational, and justified.

No, disbelief in fairies is based on the fact that there is no evidence for fairies. Disbelief that there is a Cessna 150 in your living room is based on the lack of evidence for a Cessna 150 in your loving room. When you prepare to go shopping and check your refrigerator, your decision to buy cheese is based on the lack of evidence for cheese in your refrigerator. And when you're driving to the store and stop at a stop sign, your decision to continue through the intersection is based on the lack of evidence for cross-traffic in the intersection. Your decision to continue on your way is not an "argument from ignorance".

The determination that things are not there, or do not exist, based on the lack of evidence for them is a staple throughout your day, every day. The only time you deny this is when it comes to the realization that it is therefore logical to disbelieve in God, as there is no evidence for God.

The ONLY way we can know of the existence of ANYTHING, is by evidence for that thing. Anything suggested to exist for which there is no evidence, is rightly and logically considered, a myth.

All your examples are concluded using denying the consequence. P implies Q, but Q is false, therefore P is false.
Actually, it's known as "denying the consequent and it's a a valid argument form and a rule of inference.

Correct.
If you oversee a park behind the window of a building, you can't conclude that there are no insects using using sight, as the premise "If there are insects, then I should see them" is not valid.
No one has implied restricting forms of evidence to the visual.
And no one did except you. So what are your premises that God doesn't exist?

Just answer this question: Do you believe the fallacy of an argument from ignorance is not a fallacy? Yes or no would do.
I believe you are misunderstanding it, as in the way you are presenting it, an empty garage is not indicative of no car being in the garage. That is obviously incorrect. Are you so devoid of reason that you can't understand that?
I asked you a simple a question, can you please answer it or point any loaded assumption that may exist?
Once again, you are confusing denying the consequent with arguments from ignorance.

So scientists believed Dark Matter and Higgs boson to be myths?
We have evidence for Dark Matter, and have confirmed the existence of the Higgs boson. Both were originally conceived on evidence.

So your assertion of what is considered a myth is retracted.
How do you know the existence of historical, mathematical, and logical truths?
Evidence and demonstrability (more objective evidence). Do you have someone who takes care of your every daily need? Or do you have to find your own shoes, dress yourself, drive your own car, etc? Unless someone takes care of virtually everything for you, you cannot escape the need to utilize the very premise you're suggesting to be consistent with an argument from ignorance. Have you ever realized you were missing a sock? How did you know? Have you ever misplaced your keys? How did you know they weren't where you usually keep them. This isn't rocket science, and shouldn't be wedged into any over complex analysis. You use these premise multiple times, each and every day. But now you're seeing that they degrade your argument for God, so you attempt to argue against them. That's dishonest.
What we do unconsciously is irrelevant to a rational discussion. Once again you are confusing denying the consequent with the argument from ignorance to justify the use of the said fallacy and avoid providing an argument to justify your position.

Your statement that there is no evidence is an assertion, in which you have an obligation to give reasons in the form of logic and evidence to justify it.
A lack of evidence is self-evidence. If you left your car in the garage, and someone stole it, do the police require you to prove that the car isn't in the garage? Don't be stupid.
In other words, you refuse to provide or lack evidence or reasons to justify your (anti)intellectual position. Thank you for contributing to the discussion.
The police have inductive reasons to predict that the person in the example is honest (Unless they believe everyone is a liar by default).
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 5:57:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
A lack of evidence IS NOT an argument from ignorance. Ignorance is what you don't know. A lack of evidence is what you do know. If you open a garage and find no evidence consistent with the existence of a car inside, you have learned something. You have new knowledge - that the garage contains no evidence of a car. That's not ignorance, that's a reduction of ignorance... KNOWLEDGE.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Idealist1
Posts: 117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 5:59:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 5:58:29 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheists say atheism is a default position because of a lack of evidence to believe in God, but fail to realize they require evidence for their contention that people should not believe in God/a divine reality, according to their own philosophy of evidentialism. This is a fallacy of exclusion.

Without evidence,, both propositions become false under the atheist world-view, and only agnosticism becomes viable.

I'm not sure I'd agree with your logic here. I'm not an atheist myself, but I don't really consider atheists to be religious, even though they sound religious a lot of the time, and they have the same habit of making mountains out of molehills. I think maybe this is one time when just because it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck doesn't really make it a duck. ;-)
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 6:13:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 5:49:48 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 9/13/2014 5:08:33 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/13/2014 4:52:02 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 9/13/2014 3:59:51 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/13/2014 3:49:46 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 9/13/2014 3:46:12 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/13/2014 3:32:19 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 9/13/2014 3:10:03 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/13/2014 2:48:37 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 9/13/2014 11:04:18 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/13/2014 5:58:29 AM, Installgentoo wrote:

Actually, it's known as "denying the consequent and it's a a valid argument form and a rule of inference.

Correct.
If you oversee a park behind the window of a building, you can't conclude that there are no insects using using sight, as the premise "If there are insects, then I should see them" is not valid.
No one has implied restricting forms of evidence to the visual.
And no one did except you. So what are your premises that God doesn't exist?
No, you suggested that looking out the window would not reveal the presence of insects. That's limiting the evidence set to visual. Open that window and you will likely hear crickets chirping. Now you have evidence for insects in the park.

Just answer this question: Do you believe the fallacy of an argument from ignorance is not a fallacy? Yes or no would do.
I believe you are misunderstanding it, as in the way you are presenting it, an empty garage is not indicative of no car being in the garage. That is obviously incorrect. Are you so devoid of reason that you can't understand that?
I asked you a simple a question, can you please answer it or point any loaded assumption that may exist?
A lack of evidence conveys information. It is not ignorance (a lack of information). If you are looking for a snake and observe the interior of a small depression, finding no evidence of a snake there, tells you as much as you would know if you had found a snake there. Both are new information... KNOWLEDGE... not the lack of knowledge. So no, it's NOT an argument from ignorance. It's an argument from knowledge.

Once again, you are confusing denying the consequent with arguments from ignorance.
You are confusing a lack of evidence, with ignorance. It is not ignorance. It is knowledge. Go look to see if your porch light is on. If you find no evidence that it is on, are you lacking knowledge about the state of your porch light? Please... DO try to use your brain.

So scientists believed Dark Matter and Higgs boson to be myths?
We have evidence for Dark Matter, and have confirmed the existence of the Higgs boson. Both were originally conceived on evidence.

So your assertion of what is considered a myth is retracted.
No, your ability to follow a simple observation is apparently compromised. I said; that which is suggested but DEVOID OF EVIDENCE, is a myth. Dark matter is conceived on evidence, and was not conceived prior to the discovery of that evidence. The Higgs boson was also conceived on evidence, and was confirmed on further evidence. Nothing about either one is consistent with a myth - a concept devoid of evidence.

How do you know the existence of historical, mathematical, and logical truths?
Evidence and demonstrability (more objective evidence). Do you have someone who takes care of your every daily need? Or do you have to find your own shoes, dress yourself, drive your own car, etc? Unless someone takes care of virtually everything for you, you cannot escape the need to utilize the very premise you're suggesting to be consistent with an argument from ignorance. Have you ever realized you were missing a sock? How did you know? Have you ever misplaced your keys? How did you know they weren't where you usually keep them. This isn't rocket science, and shouldn't be wedged into any over complex analysis. You use these premise multiple times, each and every day. But now you're seeing that they degrade your argument for God, so you attempt to argue against them. That's dishonest.

What we do unconsciously is irrelevant to a rational discussion.
What? You unconsciously become aware that your sock is missing? What are you rambling on about?

Once again you are confusing denying the consequent with the argument from ignorance to justify the use of the said fallacy and avoid providing an argument to justify your position.
No, a lack of evidence IS information. It is the opposite of ignorance. "Hey Dear, can you check the desk drawer and see if we are out of stamps?" If you check the drawer and find no evidence of stamps, you now have more information about your stamp supply than you had previously. You have GAINED information. It's not ignorance.

Your statement that there is no evidence is an assertion, in which you have an obligation to give reasons in the form of logic and evidence to justify it.
A lack of evidence is self-evidence. If you left your car in the garage, and someone stole it, do the police require you to prove that the car isn't in the garage? Don't be stupid.
In other words, you refuse to provide or lack evidence or reasons to justify your (anti)intellectual position.
You cannot "provide" a "lack of", you DOLT! Hey, call shipping and tell them to send Dragonfang and lack of intelligence. How will you know when it arrives?

Thank you for contributing to the discussion.
Thank you for being a typical theist jerk.

The police have inductive reasons to predict that the person in the example is honest (Unless they believe everyone is a liar by default).
Police do tend to suspect dishonesty more often than do most people. But you can't be expected to provide evidence of non-existence beyond the obvious lack of evidence for existence. To suggest otherwise is pure illogical blabbering.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 6:14:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/13/2014 3:32:19 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 9/13/2014 3:10:03 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/13/2014 2:48:37 PM, Dragonfang wrote:
At 9/13/2014 11:04:18 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 9/13/2014 5:58:29 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
Atheists say atheism is a default position because of a lack of evidence to believe in God, but fail to realize they require evidence for their contention that people should not believe in God/a divine reality, according to their own philosophy of evidentialism. This is a fallacy of exclusion.

Do you believe that people should not be willingly stupid? What evidence can you provide for that contention?

Without evidence,, both propositions become false under the atheist world-view, and only agnosticism becomes viable.

You already acknowledged atheism from an atheist's view as being "a lack of evidence to believe in God", so what definition of agnosticism are you using that differs?

Are there arguments that supports that position? If not, then it is not rationally defended or justified.

What are you talking about? I asked what definition of agnosticism he was using and you respond by asking whether that position is justified. Please try again.

You said that Atheism is a, and I quote, "a lack of evidence to believe in God".

I mean, are you serious? As I said, that means your position is not rational, justified, or based on logic or evidence.

First of all I made no point on what atheism is, I was quoting the OP to highlight the contradiction is what he just said. Pay attention next time.

With that said, atheism is a lack of belief in God. That's it. It is normally based on a lack of evidence, but everyone is entitled to their own reasons.

In my case it is based on a lack of evidence as well as an understanding of epistemology and philosophy. Most of us realize very simple concepts, like the burden of proof, and the default position regarding belief in the existence of anything. These are concepts that most theists in my view utterly fail to comprehend.

So the simple response is no, what "I" said does not mean that my position is not rational, justified, or based on logic or evidence.
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2014 6:24:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
agnositicism denies God the same as atheism. Ignorance is not an excuse for denying God. Saying "I don't know" is claiming ignorance as an excuse. There is no excuse for rejecting God.