I justify my lack of belief through the absence of sufficient evidence for theism. I have seen other atheists do this on many occasions. Haven't you? — S
No, atheism on its own is someone who hasnt been convinced, who simply lacks belief — DingoJones
Isn't this the ad ignorantiam fallacy? You can't conclude the negative just because the affirmative hasn't been proven. Suspension of judgment seems the right thing to do. — TheMadFool
I disagree with this. If one is unconvinced the right thing to do is neither affirm nor deny anything. Atheism, logically, shouldn't follow an unconvincing theistic argument.
I guess I'm saying the logical thing to do is be an agnostic.
I think it's called the argument from ignorance fallacy.
1. Theists can't prove that God exists.
So,
2. God doesn't exist.
The rational thing to do is to withold your judgment. Am I right? — TheMadFool
No, it's not an example of that fallacy. It's not fallacious, whatever the topic, to justify an absence of belief because of an absence of sufficient evidence in support of it. I'm not claiming that God doesn't exist or even that I believe that God doesn't exist, which would be the kind of claims which would be susceptible to the fallacy. — S
I think that is absolutely fine, except someone with that position should refrain from the discussion between atheist and theist. If the only thing one could add was I don't know enough to have a position - than one should logically remain on the sidelines. If one wants to challenge the theist position as false, one should have a basis for that challenge. If the only challenge is - Mr. Theist sir, you have not proved you point to my satisfaction, than argument stops there. — Rank Amateur
Socrates: I seem, then, in just this little thing to be wiser than this man at any rate, that what I do not know I do not think I know either. — The Apology
Why on earth should I refrain from those discussions? — S
I'm not claiming that God doesn't exist or even that I believe that God doesn't exist, — S
I'm challenging the claims of theism as unjustified — S
Mr. Theist sir, you have not proved you point to my satisfaction, — Rank Amateur
So here goes, I propose theism is a rational position. And I welcome any argument you can make with supportable propositions that ends in a conclusion that says "therefore theism is unreasonable" — Rank Amateur
Why didn't humans stop at atheism (I'm assuming you mean why didn't [all] humans stop at being atheists)? — Mayor of Simpleton
Or, I could be asking why [most] humans are yet to forget theism. — VoidDetector
Or, I could be asking why [most] humans are yet to forget theism. — VoidDetector
You set out your argument in a suitable place, and I'll explain why it isn't justified in accordance with a reasonable standard. — S
I suspect that fear and hierarchies/power structures and indoctrination are behind peoples religious/superstitious beliefs. — Andrew4Handel
How about William Lane Craig’s favourite, the Kalam Cosmological Argument?
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore the universe had a cause. — AJJ
In answer to the initial question: The profound mystery of existence, and our sense of morality and what that suggests about our place and purpose in the cosmos are excellent reasons to posit theism over atheism. — AJJ
Why, given our uncertainty, is the conclusion that this is a created, purposeful, just universe unwarranted? — AJJ
A hasty generalization is a fallacy in which a conclusion is not logically justified by sufficient or unbiased evidence. It's also called an insufficient sample, a converse accident, a faulty generalization, a biased generalization, jumping to a conclusion, secundum quid, and a neglect of qualifications. — Mayor of Simpleton
As for religion and society, moral evils have been committed within religious societies, and moral goods have been too. Our evils are committed by us, not by “religion”, as are our goods. Perhaps you can point us to a society that isn’t guided by beliefs, where we do neither? — AJJ
would you consider the fine tuning argument for God to fit into this category ??
would you consider the cosmological argument for an necessary being to fit into this category?
would you consider the existence of a singularity of infinite mass in zero space/time in this category?
Just trying to narrow down where you feel the parameters are for "justified and sufficient" — Rank Amateur
Just trying to narrow down where you feel the parameters are for "justified and sufficient" — Rank Amateur
I find other flaws in the first two arguments mentioned. I haven't really bother to check them for hasty generalizations, as the other things caught my eye; thus why pile on? — Mayor of Simpleton
On a side note, if one reaches a conclusion the tendency for further critical investigation slows, if not stops outright. — Mayor of Simpleton
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.