Logical fallacy of atheism

Post Reply New Topic

I would say it depends on the atheist, but the example you provided seems very much to be related to the argument from ignorance or personal incredulity, and well, I think other analogies can be provided such as:
"This person can't experience empathy, therefore empathy (according to him) doesn't exist"
or
"A doesn't feel pain, therefore pain is assumed to not exist, because A doesn't experience it".

Putting God in a box seems a worthwhile idea. Since there are many other boxes around, choosing one particular box seems somehow a limited concept.

Instead of inventing answers, I'm more curious about opening the box.


M.

Theologians for centuries have been opening the box and finding all sorts of demons inside. Like free will and omniscience and all powerful and those demons have been vociferously attacking each other continuously. It's almost as much fun as watching wrestling on TV and equally as fake.

erm, how the hell does this disprove, critique the argument of or even remotely challenge atheism?????

Assuming there even is 'a box' if what is inside it, is like what is outside it then there is no god!! ! If according to your post theists believe god (the wizard) is in the box, and atheists believe we can't know this, and your position is that what is inside is like what is outside and you don't state the belief that there is a god outside the box, then there why on your 'methodology' would there be a god inside the box?!?

1]. An individual can never prove their cognition or perception to be infallible.

2]. An individual can never truly know something, they can only make assumptions.

3]. We should only make assumptions based on our observations and logic.

4]. Both atheism and theism are based on assumptions that are themselves based on a lack of observation.

5]. From a scientific perceptive, atheism and theism are both illogical.

6]. Any "Deity" that might exist, is clearly unconcerned with the earth, rendering any questions of his existence moot.

7]. "Deity" is a poor defined term, without a conherent meaning. Before the question can be answered, a coherent meaning must be offered.

So there you have it, not only are atheists and theists both illogical, but even the asking of the question is illogical.

And a logical being (or a scientist) would not concern themselves with a box whose existence was neither possible to prove or was required to explain the base-workings of the observations we make of the natural world.

A lack of lack of observation?

I think "to assume the negative" may be one of the problems with atheism. For instance, if I'm in one room of a five-room house, and never left that room, and make the declaration that no one else is in that house, I would have to have knowledge of all five rooms. I would need to know the entirety of what I am claiming to know.

But, on the other hand, if I were to declare that the house is not empty, I would at the very least need to know about only one of the five rooms.

Therefore, a belief system such as atheism that makes the claim that there is no God is actually saying that there is no corner of reality in which God could possibly exist. And by making that assertion, the atheist is assuming absolute knowledge (omniscience) for himself.

You are correct. What you've described is called the fallacy of argument from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantium).

To my knowledge, there are several variants of atheism. They might not all be guilty of the same fallacy.

And perhaps it's a matter of sane pragmatic attitude since one must live one's life practically and not make unfounded assumptions that have no perceptive results.

This is inaccurate, at least for the standard "god" of the three monotheistic religions. An omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent god would not be twaddling about in one corner of the universe, but would be detectable everywhere. The atheist position can be viewed as a belief, though is probably more often seen as a lack of belief.

The "assume the negative" idea is common in hypothesis testing and works quite well. In your example of your five-room house, I'd like to know how you are aware that you are in a five-room house but at the same time have no knowledge of four of the rooms.

I'm an atheist. I was born that way, and belief in anything at all is very difficult for my brain. If any deity cares to suspend the laws of physics and biology in my presence, I'll immediately investigate the phenomenon and adjust my worldview accordingly.

Exactly. First of al how do you ascertain that you are in fact in a five room house without at least locating an access to the other rooms?
And, yes, why would an omnipresent god be found inside a box but not outside it (talking about a house is simply changing the analogy without addressing the problem) ?



Is it not correct therefore to dismiss the OP as a strawman? By variants do you mean different ways in which to argue that there is no god?
I, for one, worship our lord the Flying Spaghetti Monster (aaaaaaaaa), though mainly because you get to spend a day talking like a pirate; aaarrrrrrggg

Your analogy is weak. I wouldn't say the universe is like your box.

Also, when you compare the composition of the universe with the composition of your body and then conclude that the universe must be conscious like you, you commit the fallacy of composition. The whole of your argument is basically an ode to this fallacy.

And for good reason. There is not a speck of credible empirical evidence for the existence of anything supernatural. All evidence indicates that only physical things exist.

ruveyn