The logical fallacy of atheism

[Sonofason]

I wonder if there's a better analogy to use?

Perhaps the question if life, intelligent or otherwise, exists on other planets is better? I believe there is. I can't prove it. Those who don't believe it can't prove that position either. *shrugs*

Better for what, to try to prove the non-existence of God. There may be better analogies to use, but you can never prove the non-existence of existent things.

 

[Sapiens]

Better for what, to try to prove the non-existence of God. There may be better analogies to use, but you can never prove the non-existence of existent things.

You can never prove the non-existence of non-existent things either. So what is your point? Oh ... that's right, attempting to shift the burden of proof in a singularly clumsy and transparent fashion.

 

[serp777]

I once picked a wildflower. That is also a claim you can't verify. Should it get a free pass?

Should claims about leprechauns and scientology also get a free pass? How about the hamas fighters who have claimed divine revalation? You seem to have forgotten 2 pages of this debate.

Youve picked an insignificant claim and used that as an argument for the biggest question of all time. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And anecdotal claims are certainly not extraordinary.

 

[serp777]

You can never prove the non-existence of non-existent things either. So what is your point? Oh ... that's right, attempting to shift the burden of proof in a singularly clumsy and transparent fashion.

He won't listen to this kind of argument because all of his arguments presuppose that he does have special knowledge

 

[Sapiens]

He won't listen to this kind of argument because all of his arguments presuppose that he does have special knowledge

Narcissism and delusion, narcissism and delusion.

 

[Sonofason]

Sapiens had written:

I find your god claim much more disturbing because if you can convince yourself of something that is so unlikely, that has such a low probability of reality, then you are illogical, irrational, unpredictable and possibly dangerous to yourself and others.

Sonofason had responded:

You are making an assertion that you are incapable of supporting.

Mestemia interjects:

How is your god claim any different?

Well, I have actually received evidence from God which is a validation of what I am claiming for me. While you do not even have evidence that you alone possess to convince even yourself, let alone others.

Mestemia continues:

Please show your evidence and make your case that god exists.

I'm sorry, I can't do that. I am incapable of showing you the Spirit that resides in me.

Mestemia continues:

Please show your evidence and make your case that the existence of your god is even a probability, low or otherwise.

I experience God. That which I experience I make known. You can believe me or not, it is of little consequence to me, though for your sake, I wish you would believe me. Most of what we know is true is because we experience the reality of it being true. We see the sun in the sky, and we we say the sun exists because we see it in the sky. We see a river flowing through a valley, and we say the river exists because we saw it flowing through the valley. I experience God. I say God exists because I experience the existence of God. Just as you have not seen the rivers that I have seen does not mean the rivers I've seen do not exist. Perhaps I can't remember where the rivers I've seen exist, but I can surely say that I have seen the rivers I've seen, whether or not I can show you them is another matter altogether.

Mestemia continues:

Yet you want a free pass for your god...

It's not like I need a free pass to believe what I believe. I am free to believe that which I believe. What you believe concerning what I believe is of little significance to what I believe, unless of course you could show that what I believe is false, which of course, you can't.

Mestemia continues:

Again, why do you feel your god claim does not have to undergo this same scrutiny?

I do not object to you scrutinizing my beliefs. You are free to scrutinize anyone's beliefs. Your scrutiny will likely have little effect on what I believe.

Mestemia continues:

Let me answer that for you,Your "argument" has no credibility whatsoever.

Whether or not my argument is credible or not again has no bearing on what I believe. I am being as honest as I can possibly be. You can believe that what I am saying is true, or not. If I could be more convincing, you might be convinced. I wish I could be more convincing, but I am not in control of that which is convincing to you. I'm not sure that even you are. We are convinced by those things that convince us. And that's it. You can't even choose to be convinced. We are convinced when we are convinced. Only God is capable of convincing you of Himself. I'll leave the convincing of you in His hands.

 

[Sonofason]

Hey ... your symptoms fit the disease, the DRGs would have your insurance pay for your hospitalization, but most of all: extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and you don't even have ordinary proof. I know that you believe that you are in communication with a higher being who runs the universe and that that belief keeps you from seeing anything for what it really is.

What people want most out of the universe is predictability and surety (even us adventurers and explorers) and one of the ways that the cognitive dissonance created by the contradiction of that desire and the often random occurrences that we are subjected to shows itself is in the sort of delusion that you are suffering from (and your strong reaction at being confronted, a healthy person would laugh it off and walk on by.) Yes, you are clearly illogical, positively irrational, perhaps unpredictable and possibly dangerous to yourself and others. My concerns over danger could be wrong, you might be just a harmless crank, but better safe than sorry.

Your debate tactics are quite juvenile and are impotent with regard to the advancement of knowledge and truth. Your sentiments can do nothing but instill animosity in me toward you, and that is unhealthy for me. So please do not be offended that I decline to engage with you until you are capable of behaving with greater civility.

 

[Sonofason]

You can never prove the non-existence of non-existent things either. So what is your point? Oh ... that's right, attempting to shift the burden of proof in a singularly clumsy and transparent fashion.

Yes, you are right. We cannot prove that non-existent things are non-existent.
The question I asked still stands. Why would Ouroboros have asked if there is a better analogy to use? What is the purpose of finding a better analogy? Can a better analogy prove the non-existence of God? No, it can't.

Whether it does or not, can a good analogy prove that life does not exist elsewhere in the universe? No, it can't.

 

[Willamena]

Should claims about leprechauns and scientology also get a free pass? How about the hamas fighters who have claimed divine revalation? You seem to have forgotten 2 pages of this debate.

Youve picked an insignificant claim and used that as an argument for the biggest question of all time. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And anecdotal claims are certainly not extraordinary.

It's not rational to hold my claim, about which you know nothing, in any more regard than an extraordinary claim about which you know nothing.

 

[McBell]

Only God is capable of convincing you of Himself. I'll leave the convincing of you in His hands.

And yet here you are...

Like I said, rather interesting

 

[Willamena]

You can never prove the non-existence of non-existent things either.

Actually, it's pretty easy. There are no non-existent things, by definition. Non-existent things don't exist.

 

[McBell]

Actually, it's pretty easy. There are no non-existent things, by definition. Non-existent things don't exist.

Like what?

 

[Sapiens]

Actually, it's pretty easy. There are no non-existent things, by definition. Non-existent things don't exist.

Prove it.

 

[outhouse]

Prove it.

We can prove mythology, and imagination.

Human writing and making claims, is provable as unsubstantiated claims.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I have no idea whether or not leprechauns exist, whether they once existed, or if they ever shall exist. I can say that I have read some of the folklore surrounding the existence of leprechauns and I am not completely convinced that an existence of leprechauns is impossible. Neither have I been convinced that the existence of leprechauns is likely. I can tell you, however, with a great deal of certainty that, to my knowledge, I have never personally experienced a leprechaun.

So, in other words, your answer is "No".

The problem is, with regard to your professed claim of experiencing a leprechaun is that you are lying about it.

Prove it.

You never have experienced a leprechaun, and therefore is nothing more than an unjustified and unjustifiable claim.

I could just as easily say the same about you and God.

You cannot honestly say the same for my claim of experiencing God.

Yes, I can. You're dismissing my claim as a lie without any hard evidence, and so I can just as easily dismiss your claim as a lie without evidence using the exact same logic.

Are you doubting that there are people in the world who would sincerely claim to have experienced leprechauns?

In fact you are quite intrigued by my claim. You wish you could have the proof I have of God, but you can't, because you refuse to apply reason and accept that the Bible is a canon of historical documentation concerning the existence of God.

Actually, what I wish is for people to not rely upon delusions as the basis of reality, and try to tell others that their delusion gives them a more accurate understanding of the world around them.

If I should discover, even by the word of mouth that leprechauns exist and if I should be convinced that the existence of leprechauns and my belief in them should have significant implications to my life, my security, and my eternal existence, then I might consider investigating them further. But as of this point, I see no reason to invest my time in getting to know leprechauns.

Congratulations. You just perfectly outlined why I don't believe in your God.

 

[Sonofason]

And yet here you are...

Like I said, rather interesting

What you find interesting bores me.

 

[Sonofason]

So, in other words, your answer is "No".


Prove it.


I could just as easily say the same about you and God.


Yes, I can. You're dismissing my claim as a lie without any hard evidence, and so I can just as easily dismiss your claim as a lie without evidence using the exact same logic.

Are you doubting that there are people in the world who would sincerely claim to have experienced leprechauns?


Actually, what I wish is for people to not rely upon delusions as the basis of reality, and try to tell others that their delusion gives them a more accurate understanding of the world around them.


Congratulations. You just perfectly outlined why I don't believe in your God.

Okay then, I'm glad we straightened that out.

 

[Willamena]

Prove it.

It's by definition.

Like what?

Just so.

 

[Sapiens]

It's by definition.

That's a semantic game and I understand what you are saying, however, counter-intuitive as it might seem the impossibility of disproving the existence of anything (be it extant or non-extant) takes presidence. That makes my head hurt.

 

[religion99]

That's a semantic game and I understand what you are saying, however, counter-intuitive as it might seem the impossibility of disproving the existence of anything (be it extant or non-extant) takes presidence. That makes my head hurt.

Unless you know everything or know somebody who knows everything.