Logical fallacy of atheism

Post Reply New Topic

Imagine there is a boxn the inside of which you cannot see or otherwise sense in any way.

A theist is like a a person saying, "I believe there is a benevolent wizard in that box, because that's what shamans said thousands of years ago, and some of those shaman's writings survived to today and, hell, any notion that has survived over 2000 years must be true. Plus, every time anything coincidental happens, I figure it must be the wizard in the box because, afer all, coincidences are statistically impossible, right? Right?...."

An atheist, on the other hand, is like a person saying, "Since I cannot sense the inside of that box, I must assume nothing is in there until there is evidence to the contrary."

I think the flaws in the theist's logic are fairly obvious, so I'll focus on what I perceive to be the flaws in the atheist's logic.

Basically, I think the atheist thinks it is scientifically appropriate to assume the negative in the absence of knowledge to the contrary. However, even though we cannot sense the inside of the box, we CAN sense the outside of the box. The outside of the box is NOT empty. It is full of people and consciousness and love (and hate). I think the better scientific approach is, in the absence of knowledge, to assume the unknown is like the known. I call this the "law of similarities." The atheist's view seems premised on the "law of nothingness."

Anyway, I believe in the absence of knowledge, the more logically valid position is to extrapolate from the known to the unknown rather than to assume nothingness.

I apply this notion to god in this way: My body is a mix of minerals, chemicals, life, and energy, and I am conscious. The universe is made up of minerals, chemicals, life and energy. Without knowing one way or the other, I think the more logical belief is that the universe is conscious, like me, until proven otherwise.

So, anyway, I believe what exists outside of me is similar to what exists inside of me. To assume what exists outside of me is different from me, without evidence, seems rather random.

frinj, you have the issue wrong. Atheists deny there is a box at all, and thus nothing supernatural and such.

well, in the case of the strong-atheistic perspective, which is usually something like this: "I know god doesn't exist". I have heard the position of that being the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy from the oposition and from some being apparentely neutral when criticizing that atheistic position, which seems to be the case.

From wikipedia:

In many cases, the athiest is saying "I used to be believe there was a wizard in the box, but then he allowed my friend/mum/pet poodle to die, so now I refuse to believe in him because I'm very very angry with him"

How about the simple position? There is no credible empirical evidence indicating that the god, gods or supernatural beings of the various religions in fact exist.

An atheist is one who does not believe in the existence of the deity de jour.

ruveyn

I didn't spot any 'logical fallacy of atheism', but I did see a false analogy and a strawman.

Insist that there is a wizard in a box all you like, but you'd have to present a pretty good case if you'd like to convince me.

Some days I care what is in the box. Some days I do not. Today I do not.

My luck, they would all have the pink in the middle...those are kind of gross.