This post is going to look at the faulty arguments that are used to support the existence of God and the logical fallacies that they use. I will include all of the logical fallacies that I know (I'm getting them from the Uncyclopedia by Gideon Haigh It could be complete. I don't know.) And I’ll see if any argument I've come across fits them. In part 2, I'll look at other arguments, such as the Ontological Argument and Aquinas' Proofs, and the logical faults with them.
Yes, I know, this is a terrible opening...
Logical Fallacy #1
Argumentum ad atiquitatem- Fallacy of asserting that something is right because it is old
I have often heard it argued that the longevity of the Christian religion is proof of its proof. More specifically, in some cases, the longevity of the Church.
Even if we were to ignore the Logical Fallacy of the argument, it is still obviously flawed. There are many religions still in existence today that are older than the Christian faith. Judaism and Zoroastrianism come to mind and I'm sure there are others. And they can't use this argument either. (Sorry Christians, I've had more debates with you than people of other religions.)
Logical Fallacy #2
Argumentum ad baculum- Fallacy of threatening force to prevail in debate
This particular fallacy is a big one in religion. When a religion is powerful in a region, force is often used against non-believers in order to convert or exterminate them.
Logical Fallacy #3
Argumentum ad crumenam- Fallacy that those with more money are likely to be right
I don't think I've heard this one. If anyone else has, I'd love to hear it. However I can think of a variant. I have heard that the power of religious people has proved them right. For instance, the power of the Church in the Middle Ages.
Logical Fallacy #4
Argumentum ad ignorantium- Fallacy that something must be true because it has not been proven false, or false because it has not been proven true.
Two examples spring instantly to mind. One- prove to me beyond all doubt that god does not exist. You can't! Therefore, god exists. Two-They haven't found bones of Jesus. Therefore he must have risen bodily from the dead and gone to heaven.
Logical Fallacy #5
Argumentum ad lazarum- Fallacy of assuming that those with less money are more likely to be right.
Once again, I've never heard this one.
Logical Fallacy #6
Argumentum ad logicam-Fallacy of arguing that a proposition is false because it has been presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
That is why I am not upholding this as evidence against god. I am looking at the arguments for god and applying them to the Logical Fallacies.
Logical Fallacy #7
Argumentum ad misericordia- Fallacy of appealing to pity.
I've heard things like 'Why are you trying to destroy my faith?' or 'You're miserable and trying to spread your misery."
Logical Fallacy #8
Argumentum ad nauseum- Fallacy that something is more likely to be true the more often it is heard.
There do seem to be some people who will say something, be refuted, say it again, be refuted again and keep on saying it.
Logical Fallacy #9
Argumentum ad novitatem- Fallacy that something is right because it's new.
I have heard that Christianity is right and Judaism isn't through this reasoning. Of course, Islam came last...
Logical Fallacy #10
Argumentum ad populum- Fallacy of "appealing to the gallery".
So many people believe in god. They can't all be wrong.
Logical Fallacy #11
Argumentum ad verecundium- Fallacy of "appealing to authority", invoking a famous person to win support.
Jesus, Moses, Mother Teresa, monarchs, popes, etc. There's even 'did you know that Darwin was a Christian and in the end, he said that evolution was wrong?" Of course, there is an appeal to authority on the atheist side, but I've seen that more in refutation that atheists don't do good or in explanation. I haven't seen So and So was an atheist, therefore atheists are right.
Logical Fallacy #12
Bifurcation- Fallacy of presenting a situation as having only two alternatives.
Either Evolution is correct, or Creationism is. While it is possible, one day, that evolution is disproved, it could be replaced by another scientific answer.
Logical Fallacy #13
Circulus in demonstrando-Fallacy of assuming as a premise the conclusion you wish to reach.
This, of course, is circular logic. Any appeal to the bible makes this flaw. The bible is only a true, reliable source if god exists. Therefore, using the bible to support the existence of god is circular logic.
Logical Fallacy #14
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc-Fallacy of asserting that events occurring simultaneously must be causally related.
When several disasters occur at the same time (or near enough) and are seen as divine retribution for something.
Logical Fallacy #15
Natural Law fallacy-Fallacy of appealing to nature, drawing an analogy between a conclusion and some aspect of the natural world.
The world looks to complex to have come about by chance. It must have been designed.
Logical Fallacy #16
Non sequitor- Fallacy of drawing conclusion from unconnected premises.
_______ happened. If you look in the bible and interpret it in a creative way, blank was prophesized. Therefore, the bible is true. (Admission- not sure if this is actually a non sequitor. It might just be silly. I apologize in advance if this is a bad example.)
Logical Fallacy #17
Petitio principii-Fallacy of begging the question, occurring when premises of an argument implicitly assume the same result.
As far as I can tell, there's no difference between this and Circulus in demonstrando. If someone can explain the difference, I'd be very grateful.
Logical Fallacy #18
Plurium interrogationum-Fallacy of demanding a simplistic answer to a complex question
Simply explain _______ incredibly complex scientific premise that contradicts god.
Logical Fallacy #19
Post hoc ergo propter hoc- Fallacy that events happening sequentially must be causally related.
The only argument I've seen used is a different version of #14. This disaster happened, then this disaster happened. Divine retribution.
Logical Fallacy #20
Slippery slope fallacy-Fallacy that one event will inevitably lead to harmless consequences.
I have mostly seen this in arguments about abortion and same sex marriage, but I have seen it said that believing in evolution will lead all sorts of horrible things.
Logical Fallacy #21
Straw man fallacy-Fallacy of misrepresenting opponent's argument in order that one might better repudiate it.
I have seen this done to evolution. There are assumptions made about what evolution talks explains that has nothing to do with evolution. Examples such as the big bang, formation of cosmic entities and the like.
Logical Fallacy #22
Tu quoque-Fallacy of "you to," that an action is acceptable because your opponent has performed it.
I think that everyone is a little guilty of that.
...Isn't logic fun? (>:^)>)
perci
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
Ah, yes. I love it.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
Nicely done :)
Although - #19 is more like if A happened before B happened, then A must have caused B. I've only heard this argument relating to the Christianity argument once.
One of my Uncles had prayed asking to survive a cancer, and in return he had promised to walk to some church that was miles away from his home on a certain day (I think it was for a Saint Lawrence Festival).
Anyway - he recovered from the cancer. But he didn't walk; he didn't even go. He had a cold or something and wasn't feeling up to it. That night he lit a cigarette and fell asleep; the cigarette caught fire and he burned (I think he died of smoke inhalation before burning, though).
So that entire side of my family swears that the fire started because he didn't fulfill his end of the bargain.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Dream as though you'll live forever, but live as though there's no tomorrow" --James Dean
Fanaile Essence,
A-Team Member
Nominate your Favorite Blog to become a Featured Blogger!
I wasn't exactly sure of that one. It seemed a little off, but I couldn't find a better explanation anywhere.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
I have an addition to make. I gave Fallacy #6 as a reason why I was saying this isn't a direct attack on the existence of god, merely arguments for the existence of god. Fallacy#4 also compels me to make that point. Just thought I should cover that for the sake of fairness.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
Never forget that all of those arguments are used to "prove" that god does not exist as well. Atheists aren't any better at this stuff than theists.
------------------------------------------------------------
If I had had more time I would have written less. -- Thomas Jefferson
RachelSetzer.com
...demonstrates a fundamental misapprehension of the way that logical arguments work. The burden of proof in any logically sound argument is on the positive position. After all, one can use logic to prove a negative. The default assumption in any logical discourse is the false position. If you wish to claim that "god" exists, then the burden is yours to support that claim, and not on your opponents to prove otherwise.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
And therefore, since it is your personal belief, atheists, when arguing about god with theists, cannot be subject to logical falacies? Are you f***ing kidding me? Atheists utilize logical falacies constantly, not to disprove god, but to prove that theists are wrong.
For instance, "Logical Fallacy #4
Argumentum ad ignorantium- Fallacy that something must be true because it has not been proven false, or false because it has not been proven true." (emphasis mine)
I've heard more than one atheist argue the later. Existence of god has not been proven, therefore, the god theory must be false.
------------------------------------------------------------
If I had had more time I would have written less. -- Thomas Jefferson
RachelSetzer.com
As a matter of fact, I recognized that fallacy, as well as #6. I am not attacking the existence of god, merely the arguments in support of god's existence.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
Perhaps part two of your logic series should attack the arguments in support of why theists are wrong.
-----------------------------------------------
If I had had more time I would have written less. -- Thomas Jefferson
RachelSetzer.com
Please clarify.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
Your title says this is part 1. That means there must be a series of posts, part two to follow. I am suggesting that you analyze atheist arguments in a similar vein as the way you analyzed the arguments of the theists; pointing out examples of logical falacies in those arguments.
------------------------------------------------------------
If I had had more time I would have written less. -- Thomas Jefferson
RachelSetzer.com
That's what I thought, I just wasn't sure. I may try to do something like that eventually. Part 2, nearly complete deals with more specific and commonly used theological arguments, such as Aquinas and the Ontological Argument. I think I will do a part 3 that will look at the atheist arguments, but as of now I can only think of two logic based arguments. (I'm not saying others are illogical, merely thatthey are based more on scientific evidence than philisophical evidence.) I am open to suggestions. Just PM me and I promise that I will look into any argument that you send me.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
If I made the assertion 'I can prove that god does not exist', I would have to defend that statement. That is a statement that I cannot defend.
My post is stating that theists are wrong when they use certain arguments or types of arguments that are logical fallacies. Tell me, did my argument actually fall into one of those categories.
Any atheist who made the claim "Existence of god has not been proven, therefore, the god theory must be false" is, frankly, being ridiculous. Most arguments that have been utilized by atheists both on this site and off it do not do that. They attack faulty arguments used to support god and, when providing evidence about their beleifs, such as Evolution, back it up with scientific facts that do not fall into any of the logical fallacies. I'm not saying that what you're suggesting doesn't happen. What I am saying is that it does not represent arguments used by the better portion of the atheist population.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
"What I am saying is that it does not represent arguments used by the better portion of the atheist population."
Correct, just as the better portion of Christians including Jesus ascribe Faith rather than proof as their basis for beleif in God.
"Little vicious minds abound with anger and revenge, and are incapable of feeling the pleasure of forgiving their enemies."
Lord Chesterfield
"just as the better portion of Christians including Jesus ascribe Faith rather than proof as their basis for beleif in God" That is probably what is supposed to be, but I will believe it when I see it. I think that you are very honsest with yourself in regards to that, as are some others. However, the majority of people of 'faith' who I interact with, if their belief is attacked, immediately try to prove me wrong, and very often use these sort of arguments. It is only after their arguments fall apart do they say that they don't need evidence because they have faith.
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Douglas Adams
"That is not dead which can eternal lie / And with strange aeons even death may die."
H. P. Lovecraft
I just used to argue your side. That is an unequal advantage.
"The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong."
Mahatma Gandhi
?????????
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Douglas Adams
"That is not dead which can eternal lie / And with strange aeons even death may die."
H. P. Lovecraft
> Argumentum ad ignorantium- Fallacy that something
> must be true because it has not been proven false,
> or false because it has not been proven true."
The reason that these fallacies rarely apply to atheists, is that you will rarely find an atheist who actually makes the argument that you suggest. Very few atheists actually claim that "'god' does not exist," but rather that "based on the evidence, it is unlikely that god exists," or even that "no evidence that would suggest that 'god' exists has ever been objectively substantiated."
Many theists (like yourself) attempt to present a extraordinarily skewed misrepresentation of the actual arguments that are commonly found in the atheist philosophies. Granted, there do exist "hard atheists," that exert the absolute opinion that "god absolutely does not exist," but they are rare, and in my personal experience tend to be either young or very new to the idea of atheism, and are usually reacting in anger to a personal bad experience in religion. Most modern atheists, however, are well-educated and scientifically minded, and do not fall prey to this kind of fallacy.
Nevertheless, the burden of proof still lies with you to prove your claim, and it is also a logical fallacy to attempt to shift that burden off onto the negative position. That just isn't the way that the formal discipline of logic works. There are certain, specific cases when it is appropriate to shift the burden of proof, but this is not one of them.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
'Very few atheists actually claim that "'god' does not exist," but rather that "based on the evidence, it is unlikely that god exists," or even that "no evidence that would suggest that 'god' exists has ever been objectively substantiated."'
You should just change what you call yourself. It would require the admission that you are not able to accurately ascribe a probability to an unknown. That isn't so hard is it?
By the way YOU didn't miss her point, you ignored it.
"Little vicious minds abound with anger and revenge, and are incapable of feeling the pleasure of forgiving their enemies."
Lord Chesterfield
The reason that I am not an agnostic (obviously) is that I don't see any reason to apply a different set of standards for determining whether or not "god" exists, than the ones we use for, well...everything else. An agnostic (by definition) believes that the answer to the question "does 'god' exist" is inherently unknowable. However, agnosticism only has real meaning if one accepts the a priori position that "god" does in fact exists. This is obviously a false position, since if "god" exists, then "god" could just show "himself" to everyone, and that would provide a definitive answer to the question. And, if "god" does not exist, then I see no reason to recategorized "him" into a special category of non-existent objects that are considered real by some despite a lack of any evidence. Since agnosticism cannot be valid if "god" does exist, and has no point if "god" does not exist, it doesn't strike me as a very effective philosophy.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
I have added [by man] to your definition to make it acceptable to me. That may not be acceptable to you, since it renders you argument (in the third sentence) below to be invalid, since it presumes that God would at some point wish to make his presence more obvious to settle that which to him is not even a question. Your second sentence in this quote is entirely false. Under either definition you contradict yourself.
"An agnostic (by definition) believes that the answer to the question "does 'god' exist" is inherently unknowable [by man]. However, agnosticism only has real meaning if one accepts the a priori position that "god" does in fact exists. This is obviously a false position, since if "god" exists, then "god" could just show "himself" to everyone, and that would provide a definitive answer to the question."
I fully support your right to self identify, even if you must contradict your self to support your 'effective philosophy.'
"Logical Fallacy #4
Argumentum ad ignorantium- Fallacy that something must be true because it has not been proven false, or false because it has not been proven true."
---
"The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong."
Mahatma Gandhi
> I have added [by man] to your
> definition to make it acceptable
> to me.
This is a typical tactic, that I have come to expect from you. Whenever you find yourself unable to respond to the actual arguments of your opponents, you simply revise their arugments into something else that doesn't present quite the same obstacle.
> That may not be acceptable to you,
> since it renders you argument (in the
> third sentence) below to be invalid,
If you wish to argue with yourself, feel free...but please refrain from attributing your modified arguments to me.
> since it presumes that God would at
> some point wish to make his presence
> more obvious to settle that which to
> him is not even a question.
Even so, this little attempt of yours doesn't really work in your favor. If "god" can make his presence known, that means that the question can be definitively answered.
> Your second sentence in this quote is
> entirely false. Under either definition
> you contradict yourself.
I am having great difficulty following the...I hesitate to use the term..."reasoning?" in this argument. Terms like atheism and agnosticism have meanings, and your entire response seems to be based on a set of definitions that are not properly attributed to these ideas.
> I fully support your right to self identify,
> even if you must contradict your self to
> support your 'effective philosophy.'
Simply declaring something "contradictory" doesn't make it so. The fact is that I use the terms atheist and agnostic very precisely, while you my friend are blundering about with language that you obviously have great difficulty. If you wish to create new concepts to define your beliefs, please do so, but when you misapply terminology (as you have been here), you only add the the (already significant) confusion surrounding your points.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
Here is your sloppy thought:
"An agnostic (by definition) believes that the answer to the question "does 'god' exist" is inherently unknowable. However, agnosticism only has real meaning if one accepts the a priori position that "god" does in fact exists."
That is just WRONG. You do not have to assume something to think you can't know it. I gave you a chance to restate it and I am left to assume that you are just too stupid.
"This is obviously a false position, since if "god" exists, then "god" could just show "himself" to everyone, and that would provide a definitive answer to the question."
Only a mental midget could think this made sense as well. God showing himself is never guaranteed to happen in your lifetime. If it did happen a fanatic like yourself could deny it, and rationalize any number of ways to say it was something else. Thus the Agnostic is correct, it is not provable.
Jesus said that it required faith, not proof. This leaves the most superstitious position of these three to be atheism. You assign fact to an unproven assertion or at the least "improbable" to an area where probability has NOTHING to be based on. There are two possible values to this question. A fool that did not understand probability could say that made each a 50% probability. That would be wrong, but honest. In fact one is right the other wrong no uncertainty, just a lack of knowledge. Your baseless assertion of higher probability for your prejudice is not only foolish, it is dishonest.
One of the most uncorrectable forms of ignorance is the one you demonstrate. Thinking you know so much, because you know a little.
If you wish to respond try to focus on these three sentences. You seem to get confused by broader questions.
"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much."
Oscar Wilde
I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one on, well, everything.
1) Agnosticism- When you assign, to anything, the inability to be proven or disproven (within reasonable doubt), then you have made an error. You admit that you are dealing with something that you can't understand, but you asssign a property to it. Not only that, but a property that can be assigned to nothing else and that is completley arbitrary.
2) God Revealed- Only a moron would try and justify that away. The only way that could happen, with me remaining unsure, is if it happened in a dream, or I was unconcious or whatever. I don't think a single atheist would deny god if he showed himself.
3) Superstition- To remove possibility and probability and proveability from something because of something a 2000 year old figure is alleged to have said is superstition. To demand evidence, look at possibilities and probabilities is not. In fact, atheism, in its ovewhelmingly more common form, is the least superstitios of the three because it is the only one not to assign to god's existence, the arbitrary atributes, of unprovability and god's being outside of the feild of logic and evidence. (Sorry for that horribly mangled sentence.)
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Douglas Adams
"That is not dead which can eternal lie / And with strange aeons even death may die."
H. P. Lovecraft
I think the same scenario goes a long way to explain 1 &2.
"1) Agnosticism- When you assign, to anything, the inability to be proven or disproven (within reasonable doubt), then you have made an error."
"2) God Revealed- Only a moron would try and justify that away."
More than half of people alive today seem to think it happened already. Some people think Benny Himm is very compelling 'evidence' of the fact. The problem that makes both of examples fall short of proof is the subjectivity of the human experience. It is not hard to imagine a combination of trickery, hypnotism, and chemical intoxication that would convince anyone under its influence that they had 'seen' God. Anyone not subjected to the illusion would be quite correct to reject the 'proof' of witnesses due to this possibility. If every human on earth were put under this type of suggestion it would not be any better of a proof.
"3) Superstition- To remove possibility and probability and proveability from something because of something a 2000 year old figure is alleged to have said is superstition. To demand evidence, look at possibilities and probabilities is not. In fact, atheism, in its ovewhelmingly more common form, is the least superstitios of the three because it is the only one not to assign to god's existence, the arbitrary atributes, of unprovability and god's being outside of the feild of logic and evidence. (Sorry for that horribly mangled sentence.)"
I can understand how you would feel that way. In fact, civil behavior has little room for attacking unreason with any tool but reason. My last post was intended as an example of reflexive disrespect toward Persivale and indirectly Darwin's Beagle. I would feel like a moron myself if I wrote a blog calling other peoples beliefs 'ridiculous' or superstitious. I am working on a couple POSITIVE posts in support of my own faith.
A truism IMHO is "Fear makes assholes of us all" which leads me to suspect such negative statements reveal a basic insecurity in ones own belief.
"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much."
Oscar Wilde
> That is just WRONG. You do not have
> to assume something to think you can't
> know it. I gave you a chance to restate
> it and I am left to assume that you are
> just too stupid.
It is interesting that you call me stupid, when you are the one who doesn't even know the meanings of the words you use. The definition of agnosticism is what it is, regardless of whether you like it or not. Perhaps if you spent a little more time studying the historical and philosopical roots of these philosophies, their most common defintions would not seem so strange to you.
> Only a mental midget could think
> this made sense as well.
I think that it is more accurate to say that only a mental midget would lack the ability to understand such a simple point of view, but that would be a subjective observation and so isn't really a relevant point for us to debate.
> God showing himself is never
> guaranteed to happen in your lifetime.
Irrelevant. The basic premise of agnosticism is that the truth-value of the assertion that "god exists" is unknowable. If there is a way for someone to know something, regardless of how obsure or unlikely, then the that truth-value is NOT, by definition, unknowable.
> Thus the Agnostic is correct, it is
> not provable.
Then I will ask you a very simple question. Is it or is it not possible for the "god" in which you believe to show himself directly?
> Jesus said that it required faith, not
> proof.
Jesus was a character in a book, dude. We don't actually know ANYTHING about what the semi-historical person upon which the myths in the bible are based actually said. Also, if you let go of your christian-conceit for a moment, you might also realize that neither agnosticism and atheism have any special relationship to christianity. Both of these philosophies are skeptical repsonses to theism, of which christianity is just ONE sectarian example.
> This leaves the most superstitious
> position of these three to be atheism.
*rolls eyes*
> You assign fact to an unproven assertion
> or at the least "improbable" to an area
> where probability has NOTHING to be
> based on. There are two possible values
> to this question.
You are fundamentally misapplying the principles of logical argument. The default position in any logical exercise is to presume that the premise to be tested in false. The burden of proof then lies with positive position to shift that default position towards true through valid argumentation. In the absense of ANY objective arguments that would actually support your unsound conclusion, it is logically consistent to refer to the premise as improbable.
> One of the most uncorrectable forms
> of ignorance is the one you demonstrate.
> Thinking you know so much, because
> you know a little.
Yeah, yeah...I hear this a lot from people who can't keep up with me intellectually.
> If you wish to respond try to focus on
> these three sentences. You seem to get
> confused by broader questions.
I really don't think there is anything about your arugment that I don't understand. You are engaging in the exact same logical fallacy that ruins all theologial arguments. You are treating the existence "god" as a confirmed premise, when in fact the truth-value of that question is the conclusion that you are attempting to reach. The entire scope of your arugment is circular, and boils down to little more than "god exists because god exists."
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
The straw man #21 is the fallacy that best describes the problem with this post, How does a lack of proof apply to matters of faith? You are picking a small subset of Christians and by implication pretending it helps your argument against the existence of God.
#s 4, 11, and 12 are also very common among Atheist 'reasoning.'
I also think that you ascribe Agnostic beleif improperly as Atheist. It is My understanding that Atheist means Not believing. It ascribes non-existence, or improbability to the question. Thus a claim of proof of Atheism would also require falacious reasoning. If you wish to be an Atheist it requires faith or illogic just as beleiving in God does. A smaller portion of Atheists seem to recognise this than Christians, perhaps because faith is specifically part of Christs teaching.
"Little vicious minds abound with anger and revenge, and are incapable of feeling the pleasure of forgiving their enemies."
Lord Chesterfield
"The straw man #21 is the fallacy that best describes the problem with this post, How does a lack of proof apply to matters of faith? You are picking a small subset of Christians and by implication pretending it helps your argument against the existence of God." First, I have admitted that this proves nothing about god. I am not directly talking about the existence of god here. I am specifically talking about the arguments used to support god. Secondly, you talk to people who hear you. Most of the Christian debaters on this site try to prove that god exists. It is very uncommon on this site for a religiously minded person to say that there is no evidence that my god exists and I don't need any because I have faith. Personally, I don't find that to be the case in real life either. Most people seem to fall back on faith only after they fail to argue the point.
#4- As I said, I am not attacking god. I am attacking the arguments. I plainly stated that this does not in anyway disprove god.
#11- Where have I done that? Also, I think you misunderstand the fallacy. The fallacy is not saying "here is something someone with authority said and this is why it is true". It is saying that it is true BECAUSE someone with authority said it.
#12- Either god exists or he does not. You can't sort of exist. While there is more than one version of god, though I am mainly talking JUdeo-Christian here, I make the claim that, based on the evidence, I see no reason to believe that ANY deity exists.
You also seem to confuse atheism with agnosticism. The literal definition of Atheist is without theism. The atheist stance is not, for most people, that GOD DOESN'T EXIST, but that there is no reason, based on the evidence, to believe that he/she/it/they exist. Agnosticism says that we don't know and can't know and that the opinions are equal. Agnosticism seems, to me, to be defined by NOMA.
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Douglas Adams
"That is not dead which can eternal lie / And with strange aeons even death may die."
H. P. Lovecraft
that I can see. Just the implication as I said.
Your definitions of Atheist and Agnostic match mine. I would say that there is a finer line to walk as an Atheist to avoid superstition.
"The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong."
Mahatma Gandhi
I think that the problem many atheists face is that they will say God Doesn't Exist, in a definite way. They probably don't differ in actual beliefs from the idea that we don't think god exists because of a lack of evidence, or whatever. The problem is that it can be irksome to define your position, exactly, whenever you are talking about it.
"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"
Douglas Adams
"That is not dead which can eternal lie / And with strange aeons even death may die."
H. P. Lovecraft
"The problem is that it can be irksome to define your position, exactly, whenever you are talking about it."
I know what you mean. Some people think they get to define your beliefs for you.
"To be wronged is nothing unless you continue to remember it."
Confucius
Technically speaking, there are two types of atheists. At the risk of oversimplifying...A hard atheist actively believes that there is no "god," but a soft atheist merely believes that there is no reason to believe in "god." A hard atheist has reached a conclusion, but a soft atheist is still open to the idea, should any contradictory evidence appear. Most of the modern atheists that I have known are of the latter category. These different branches of the atheistic mode of thought have been around for ages (at least since the Ancient Greeks, anyway), though the actual terms "hard atheist" and "soft atheist" ("strong atheist" and "weak atheist" are another set of terms for this dichotomy) are modern terms that date back to the early eighties, I think.
An agnostic on the other hand, is someone who believes that it is impossible to know whether or not an ultimate cause, or "god" exists. Most agnostics (though not all), do in fact believe in the basic existence of some sort of deity or universal force that exists ourside of their reckoning.
A soft atheist (which is the category into which most modern atheists fall) by contrast does believe that evidece is possible but merely absent, and that absense of evidence is what drives their skepticism, which is not the same thing as an definitive denial. One of the main reasons for the intellectual difference between "hard" and "soft" atheism is that "hard atheism" does in fact lead one to engage in the kinds of illogical fallacies that poison the well for theism. Surprisingly, even Richard Dawkins (probably the most outspoken atheist in modern popular culture) technically falls into the "soft atheist" category, and I think he puts it very well...
"We cannot, of course, disprove God, just as we can't disprove Thor, fairies, leprechauns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But, like those other fantasies that we can't disprove, we can say that God is very very improbable." (LINK)
TTFN,
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.