What is atheist fundie lack of belief in god?
It seems lack of belief in god is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to investigate for himself and demands the believers to prove it to him thinking they care if he does or not. Lack of belief to an atheist fundie, is what sand is to an Ostrich.
Have the atheist fundies considered what price of seeking to force their lack beliefs on others may cost what if perhaps someday they use brute force, to force you to believe.
All an atheist fundies argument against god just a bizarre collection of out-of-context quotations, misquotations, misleading quotations, non sequiturs, errors of fact, Straw man arguments, every manner of logical fallacy and just about every other dirty intellectual trick known to man.
Who set fire to the atheist fundie strawman again?
Straw Man (But of course atheist fundies never claim anything it’s the damn Christians!)
If god then X… The lamers guide to why god does not exist 🙂 If God is all powerful why did he take six days to make the universe? Standard atheist fundie troll question format.
The straw man fallacy is also very common, particularly in Theological debates. Think about this one literally. A man made of straw is easy to push to the ground. A real man is harder to push to the ground. What happens in this fallacy is that someone builds up someone else’s position like it’s made of straw, then easily knocks it down. In other words, someone attributes a false position to an opponent, then easily attacks that false position. If he had described the true position, it wouldn’t be so easy to knock down.
Sometimes the straw man fallacy aims to make someone’s argument or claim look downright ridiculous. For example: “This is what Christians actually believe…”
Here’s a full example of a typical straw man: “Theists thinks God is in everything. But if God is in everything then my pencil is God and I should worship it. This is idiotic. So God can’t be in everything.” Here the belief that God is in everything is equated with the need to worship—this is a mischaracterization of pantheism, the belief that God is in everything. It’s also used to justify misplaced burdens of proof and in begging the question fallacies. Such as “Atheists don’t claim there is not a god its Christian who do they need to prove it.” Or “ If christian believe in god why don’t the give one shred of evidence he exists.” If god then X…
A little logic will show you why some people are agnostic I don’t pretend to know what ignorant atheist fundies claim, they believe does not exist.
It boggles my mind why people just can’t say I don’t know… I think I’ll go make holy water get me some tap juice and boil the hell out of it.
I don’t know if there is a god but I know damn well you atheist fundies don’t know either. Just admit it…Wisdom is knowing you know nothing…
Do atheist fundies have a false dilemma on their hands?
The false dilemma fallacy happens a lot consider the following. The typical question is “Christians, I believe in God, but how can a story that has a talking snake in it, not be mythology?” What’s the problem with this statement? The problem is that the question has given you the illusion that there are only two choices: Believe in god, or believe in talking snakes. This is a false dilemma fallacy. Clearly, there are other options besides the ones presented. You could believe in the bible stories and god, or believe in god and accept the moral of the story as wisdom, or disbelieve in god and the bible.
Atheists lead the question to presuppose that you’re an idiot if you do not believe what they present. It’s akin to child psychology but they figure it’s very cunning and logical. After all only a moron would believe in a talking snake. And the ignorant atheist tries to pass the failed logic on as reason.
Point in question: I believe in Aesop, but how can a story of a talking rabbit and turtle not be mythology? And they have a race and the turtle out runs the rabbit, that’s just not possible? If you analyze Aesop and the turtle and miss the moral of the story, what’s the point? The gift is the moral and the story carries the moral. It’s like a getting Christmas gift unwrapping the gift, keep the paper and toss the gift. Not so bright.
The crux of the false dilemma is that only two options are presented when there are, in fact, other options. Like if you believe in god then do you believe in pink unicorns Thor and whatever else exists too? The problem with the false dilemma is that it’s an attempt to simplify the world in areas where the world is clearly complex. Here’s another common one that is often used by leaders: “Either you’re with us, or you’re against us.”
Note that there are cases where there are only two choices about something; such cases are not false dilemma fallacies. For example: “Either you are Ray Balthazar or you are not.” There are only two possibilities here.
Why do atheist fundies claim that you cannot prove a negative?
Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise is a logical fallacy that is committed when a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion, but one or two negative premises.
For example:No fish are dogs, and no dogs can fly, therefore all fish can fly.
The only thing that can be properly inferred from these premises is that some things that are not fish cannot fly, provided that a dog exists.
Theists have no proof of god, and so no god can exist, therefore no proof can exist.
The only thing that can be properly inferred from these premises is that some things that do not have proof cannot exist, PROVIDED that a god exists.
Atheists don’t believe the bible. Theists who believe the bible don’t appreciate real literature. Therefore, Atheists appreciate real literature.
This negative could be proven mathematically as
If A ⊄ B and B ⊄ C then A ⊂ C.
It is a fallacy because any valid forms of categorical syllogism that assert a negative premise must have a negative conclusion.
Need more “proof”. Here are some examples:
All squares have four corners.
No round thing has four corners.
Therefore, no squares are round.
You can even prove a universal negative if you can distribute both terms.
There are no eggs in my hands.
I know what an egg is and what it is not. I also know about every square inch of my hands. Therefore all I have to do is look at them. If I see no eggs in my hands, then I have just proved a universal negative.
So in order to prove god does not exist all you have to do is know what god is. You need to define god so everyone knows what you’re howling about when you say you do not believe in it.