Argument from incredulity and arguments against God's existence

[keith99]

See David Berlinski - RationalWiki

Despite the source, which you may not be sympathetic to, I think the facts it gives about David Berlinski are clear enough. He is not a scientist, he is a mathematician. He claims not to be a creationist, but uses classic creationist arguments to attack evolution (they eye could not possibly have evolved; how could living organisms have appeared all at once in the Cambrian explosion? How could a cow have changed into a whale?) And he is a valued member of the Discovery Institute, who are desperate for anyone they can tout as being a professional.

The funny thing about the eye claim is that Darwin addressed it in detail in The Origin of Species not only showing how the eye could have evolved but even showed that the major points along the way all exist in the Mollusk family. It seems creationists rarely bother to read the book they criticize so much.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

So, are you really from Shanghai, or is that a descriptor of your modus operandi?

I've lived in China for quite a few years, but I'm British.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

The funny thing about the eye claim is that Darwin addressed it in detail in The Origin of Species not only showing how the eye could have evolved but even showed that the major points along the way all exist in the Mollusk family. It seems creationists rarely bother to read the book they criticize so much.

Exactly.
I remember a very funny video from the Atheist Experience radio show. A caller said he had a challenge to them. The conversation went something like this:
- So, Darwin himself said that evolution didn't work. Listen, in the Origin of the Species, he wrote: "To suppose that the eye...could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
- Yes, go on.
- Well, you see, that's Darwin himself saying that evolution doesn't make sense.
- Yes, we understand your point. Please, carry on reading.
- What do you mean?
- Well, you've got the text in front of you, a book or a computer screen or something. Please, carry on reading from where you just stopped.
- Okay. "Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real."
- Right.
- Right what?

And so they had to explain to him what Darwin was actually saying.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I've lived in China for quite a few years, but I'm British.

You're one intriguing chap, that's for sure!

 

[muichimotsu]

Nice, inferential ad hominem directed at David Berlinski, IA.

Personally, I think Berlinski has some interesting things to say, even if he is a non-Christian Jewish person of a more agnostic bent who works with the Discovery Institute. Have you ever read one of his books or listened to him speak? No?

Your personal assessment is irrelevant if the arguments he makes would be regarded as insufficient by you, very likely, if they weren't in his position of influence in the first place. Just Joe Schmo somewhere making his arguments wouldn't have nearly the same impact, would it?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Your personal assessment is irrelevant if the arguments he makes would be regarded as insufficient by you, very likely, if they weren't in his position of influence in the first place. Just Joe Schmo somewhere making his arguments wouldn't have nearly the same impact, would it?

What are you trying to say here?

 

[muichimotsu]

What are you trying to say here?

That you saying he makes sense and you find him authoritative is an empty claim without substantiation, as InterestedAtheist requested. And you reacted as if that was such an absurd thing to ask, as if requesting evidence for a claim is optional in some sense or irrelevant to having a discussion that supposedly has factual basis in the conclusion you reached from someone's works

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That you saying he makes sense and you find him authoritative is an empty claim without substantiation, as InterestedAtheist requested. And you reacted as if that was such an absurd thing to ask, as if requesting evidence for a claim is optional in some sense or irrelevant to having a discussion that supposedly has factual basis in the conclusion you reached from someone's works

I didn't say that Berlinski makes sense, nor did I say he's authoritative. If you think I've actually said either of these things, you may want to produce proof of my having said either of these things. So, where did I say these things?

IOW: Please stop misrespresenting what I've said.

 

[Astrophile]

I guess I'd better see for myself what the man has to say. Here's a good article by him...

All Those Darwinian Doubts

Look — A great many species enter the fossil record trailing no obvious ancestors and depart for Valhalla leaving no obvious descendants.

So how does Dr. Berlinski think these species entered the fossil record in the first place? Does he think that the 'first' members of the species had parents, grand-parents, great-grand-parents, etc., like all the rest of us, and that these ancestors weren't preserved as fossils, or does he think that the 'first' members of the species came into existence by spontaneous generation, which has never been observed and which was disproved during the 19th century? It would also be interesting to know how old Dr. Berlinski thinks the Earth is, and how he thinks the rocks that contain the fossil species were deposited.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

So how does Dr. Berlinski think these species entered the fossil record in the first place? Does he think that the 'first' members of the species had parents, grand-parents, great-grand-parents, etc., like all the rest of us, and that these ancestors weren't preserved as fossils, or does he think that the 'first' members of the species came into existence by spontaneous generation, which has never been observed and which was disproved during the 19th century? It would also be interesting to know how old Dr. Berlinski thinks the Earth is, and how he thinks the rocks that contain the fossil species were deposited.

It would indeed be interested to know these things. Beyond being aware that he is a fairly well-known creationist shill of the Discovery Institute, I don't know much about him. But I'd guess - based on the fact that he is a genuinely clever person, clever enough to realise that creationism is nonsense - that he's just in it to become famous, and doesn't care how. And the Discovery Institute is happy to spread his name far and wide for the superficial plausibility it lends them to have a mathematics professor on their side.

 

[packermann]

See David Berlinski - RationalWiki

Despite the source, which you may not be sympathetic to, I think the facts it gives about David Berlinski are clear enough. He is not a scientist, he is a mathematician.

Are you a scientist?

He claims not to be a creationist, but uses classic creationist arguments to attack evolution (they eye could not possibly have evolved; how could living organisms have appeared all at once in the Cambrian explosion? How could a cow have changed into a whale?)

Could you please provide exact quote and their source?

And he is a valued member of the Discovery Institute, who are desperate for anyone they can tout as being a professional.

Can you read minds? How do you know how desperate they are?

 

[packermann]

"I don't understand how that can be true and so it is false" is is not so different "I do understand this and it is false."

Perhaps read that again. They are polar opposites. The one is the contradiction of the other. And you're saying they are practically the same.

OK. My bad. I misread your statement. But I do not see that you present any evidence that you understand it.

Yes, I'm admitting there can be counter-arguments to some of those. That doesn't mean that the atheists who make such claims think so. In their opinion, "An all-loving God who sends people to hell" is literally just as nonsensical as "2+2=5". And they're not stupid or insane for saying that. Their argument is not structured as an argument from incredulity.

2 + 2 != 5 is not an opinion. There is no discussion to that. You admit that the other is atheists' opinion. That is the big difference is that the atheists, such as yourself, treat their opinions as facts. This is what fundamentalists do.

Are you not also saying that you are absolutely right and those who disagree with you are absolutely wrong?

Of course not! This is why I am a believer! A believer believes that the evidence is not absolute. On the basis of the evidence alone we believers can be wrong. We need to step out faith. We believe it. But you do not see how you, too, are stepping out on faith - faith that there is no God.

I do not understand why atheists have to comfort themselves that if there is a God that God would still send them to heaven - He would so impress with atheists being free thinkers. That does not sound like someone who believe there is no God as he believes that 2 + 2 != 5. If he did then why must he comfort himself about a scenario if he is wrong? If Islam turns out to be true, I accept that I would go to Hell. I can accept that because I believe that Islam false, evidently more than today's atheist believes that the Christian God is false.

No. That's just stupid.

I have had discussions with many Christian fundamentalists. They will just say that something is stupid without giving adequate reasons to support their assertion. Fundamentalists think their assertions are reason enough.

An atheist is a person who answers "no" to the question, "Are you convinced that there is a god?"

No, that is an agnostic.

BTW, what kind of evidence would there have to be to convince you that there is a God?

Lol, you are so very confused.

Again, you state an assertion as if it is evidence or reason.

After our brief conversation here my initial diagnosis of you is that you are suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect. You definitely seem to think you've got this whole thing figured out. I've been doing it longer. I can assure you that you don't have it figured out.

Again, you state an assertion as if it is evidence or reason.

 

[Ophiolite]

I would consider this a somewhat inconsistent usage of the term "evidence," since in the context of the question of theism, usually when people demand empirical evidence, they immediately discount any indirect observation as being fallacious in one sense or another.

I don't see how this is relevant.

• I do not agree with those who might reject evidence on the basis it is indirect. It is, when singular, less convincing, but it is still valid.
• I would consider indirect observation to be a subset of empirical evidence, so we may have another semantic distinction between us.
• But, accepting there is both direct (empirical) and indirect evidence, I would add a third category of extrapolation of known laws and observations, but perhaps that what you mean by "indirect".
• While we are at it we should also note that the absence of certain kinds of evidence is also evidence. ("Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence" is a cute and often useful aphorism, but it is not an absolute.)

yes, this is what I've been trying to get at all along. We usually make the claim that something is not plausible when there's reason to believe that it's not true, and that's a very different thing than merely saying that there isn't sufficient evidence to believe that it is true.

Well, I've typed then deleted multiple responses to this, but have come up with "Why? Why would you think that? "
I consider something plausible when the evidence in support of it outweighs the evidence against it. That test fails when the evidence for it is minimal, or weak, or both.

So in one thread, you make the statement that the Christian God is not plausible, implying that there are actually reasons to believe that the Christian God does not exist. In this thread, however, when addressing the question of whether arguments against theism actually succeed, you claim instead that the only thing that matters is a lack of meaningful evidence. This strikes me as a significant shift from one thread to the other.

You have read an implication into my use of the word plausible that was not there. These are the online Merriam-Webster definitions:
1: superficially fair, reasonable, or valuable but often specious . . . a plausible pretext
2: superficially pleasing or persuasive . . . . a swindler … , then a quack, then a smooth, plausible gentleman— R. W. Emerson
3: appearing worthy of belief . . .the argument was both powerful and plausible

I don't see in any of these support for your interpretation. Thus, as was my initial reaction, I don't believe my posts held contradictions and certainly I intended none.

I think that it's fine to say that you think theism (or a particularly brand of theism) is actually implausible, but I'm not sure how you can do that and then dodge arguments like the one the OP is making by focusing instead on an unspecified evidentiary standard. Granted, the reference to evolution was probably unhelpful.

Unfortunately I focused almost all my attention on my word usage, specifically "evidence" and "plausible", largely because I expected to find that you were correct and I had been abusing the English language. Consequently, I completely forgot about the final paragraph till coming to right this now.
Again, we have different perceptions. I didn't dodge the OPs argument. I dealt with it directly. His chain of logic is broken and nothing more need be said. The evidentiary standard was either an aside, or an adjunct to the demonstration of the broken logic chain, or both.

I suspect that the foregoing has confused, bemused and perplexed rather clarified so pin down on any and all points. I might finally make sense.

Note: I said earlier that I would reply during the weekend. I was distracted by some minor personal matters, so I hope you will excuse the delay.

 

[packermann]

Please. That verges on being offensive.

I did not mean to attack you personally.

You are making assertions about my views and how I arrived at them without having any means of knowing this.

Join the club! I lost count on how many times that we believers only believe in God for some "wish fulfillment", which is far more offensive. Would you consider that to be wrong?

1. I did not state there was no evidence for the teachings of Christianity. I stated there was no meaningful evidence. (Or perhaps I said substantive.)

Your very quote of mine contradicts this:

You are assuming that there is no substantive argument. You assume that atheism is true in order to say that is no evidence for Christianity, something which I am sure that more Christians on this forum would disagree

I did not write you stated there was no evidence for the teachings of Christianity, but that you stated there is no substantive argument.

2. I did not arrive at that conclusion on the basis that I assumed atheism was true. That would be a fatuous, illogical argument that could only realistically be produced by a dolt. I am reasonably sure I am not a dolt.

My bad. I get so many responses from atheists that I overlooked that you are an agnostic.

3. I was raised as a Christian. As I devoted more time to the study of Scripture and involvement in the Christian community my doubts as to the source of its teachings increased.

OK. But then I have more questions.

Since you were raised as a Christian, devoted to the study of scripture, would it be safe to say that you were raised as a Bible-believing, evangelical, even maybe a fundamentalist Christian? So why did you not try other parts of Christianity? Also, could it possibly be that you are rebelling against your upbringing? How was your relationship with your parents, especially your father? Some atheist and agnostics project their resentments of their father onto the Father God. If your relationship with your relationship with your parents was not that good, could this have been an influence in your rebellion?

These are not accusations - just questions. I am not looking for answers. I am not sure I would get a straight answer, anyway. I am just pointing out that your Christian upbringing could have worked against you.

4. Eventually, I concluded that the lack of meaningful evidence coupled with the reliance upon faith to sustain belief made the whole concept of the Christian God implausible.

What kind of meaningful evidence would convince you that God existence is plausible?

 

[packermann]

Science is not absolutist in nature, you're mischaracterizing the whole institution as if it changing means it's unreliable in the claims it makes based on studying the evidence we acquire, but that's wholly incorrect. The changes are based on an understanding that we should strive for precision in our knowledge about the world through scientific methods

Changes are not just striving for precision. It is at times a total change.

The biggest change can be seen in quantum mechanics. Before this, there was a general belief that there is law and order in the universe. Quantum mechanics blew this out of the water. They found that a photon light beam behaves one way when it is not being observed and another way that when it is observed. So this means that at a subatomic level, particles behave differently depending on whether it is being observed or no. How can this be? How can mindless particles know that they are being watched? It is as if a Mind is controlling them!

But even more important, this brings into question whether any scientific experiment gives us true knowledge of the world. How do we know that the world does not behave in a different way when it is not being observed? I recall reading that modern scientists would not say that a theory, even substantiated by observations and experiments, is necessarily is a reflection of the real world. They now just say that the theory is workable. It does not mean it is true.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

OK. My bad. I misread your statement. But I do not see that you present any evidence that you understand it.

Let me get this straight. I've been explaining this to you the whole time, and you've only just now caught up, and then you go on to say that I'm the one who might not be understanding?

Lol, too cute.

2 + 2 != 5 is not an opinion. There is no discussion to that. You admit that the other is atheists' opinion. That is the big difference is that the atheists, such as yourself, treat their opinions as facts. This is what fundamentalists do.

I'm going to explain this one more time. If you don't get it, we can just be done.

Argument type and argument structure have *NOTHING TO DO* with validity or soundness of premises.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the atheists are dead wrong when they say that it is a logical contradiction for an all-loving God to send people to hell. This would merely be an unsound premise in a valid logical argument of the form

If X, then not Y.
Y.
Therefore, not X.

If God is all-loving, then we won't go to hell.
We will go to hell.
Therefore, God is not all-loving.

There is NO APPEAL to incredulity. There is no "I don't understand this, therefore it is false." It is a logical argument. Premise 1 is the point in question, but even if it is false, it is still not an argument from incredulity. It would be a valid but unsound syllogistic argument.

Just because an argument contains an error, doesn't mean it contains literally EVERY FALLACY known to man, nor does it contain any fallacy of your choosing. There are specific fallacies. This one would merely be a false premise - nothing more.

Now please, acknowledge that you have been wrong this whole time and the atheists here will respect you more. Because you definitely ARE wrong, and burying your head in the sand is not respectable.

Of course not! This is why I am a believer! A believer believes that the evidence is not absolute. On the basis of the evidence alone we believers can be wrong. We need to step out faith. We believe it. But you do not see how you, too, are stepping out on faith - faith that there is no God.

Talk to other Christians then. "I know it because I know it because I know it" and "God is absolutely real and this is an absolute fact" and "God is the bedrock foundation of existence."

I do not understand why atheists have to comfort themselves that if there is a God that God would still send them to heaven - He would so impress with atheists being free thinkers.

Huh?

That does not sound like someone who believe there is no God as he believes that 2 + 2 != 5. If he did then why must he comfort himself about a scenario if he is wrong?

I don't do that. I don't know of any atheist who does.

Yes, fear of hellfire is usually the last thing that fades away since it is typically used as a fear tactic on little children to psychologically lock them into Christianity. Little children often have such imaginations that we have to convince them that there are no monsters, so when the adults that they trust tell them there is something that they have to imagine, they typically believe it.

So basically it gets in there deep. Oh, and of course, churches offer absolutely zero exit-counseling for those who want to become atheist. In fact, the old scare tactic of hell is typically the first thing they'd mention to a "wandering sheep." So I would speculate that atheists who take comfort in believing they'd go to heaven are just transitional atheists. Give them a bit of time to work through the unethical psychological manipulation they experienced in their early childhood that is, to no one's surprise, effecting them throughout their entire life.

If Islam turns out to be true, I accept that I would go to Hell. I can accept that because I believe that Islam false, evidently more than today's atheist believes that the Christian God is false.

No, not more so. In fact I think that Islam is more likely to be true. It is, of course, the most terrible religion on the planet, but that has nothing to do with the truth value of its claims. But the religion itself seems to be more internally consistent than Christianity, so it is automatically more likely to be true.

I have had discussions with many Christian fundamentalists. They will just say that something is stupid without giving adequate reasons to support their assertion. Fundamentalists think their assertions are reason enough.

Yes, I'm aware.

No, that is an agnostic.

Most atheists are agnostic and most theists are gnostic. You seem to be an agnostic Christian. Good for you.

Feel free to ask the other atheists here to explain to you what I've just said. As I mentioned earlier, I will no longer strive with you if you fail one more time at understanding the logical nature of arguments - and I've got my money on you not getting it.

BTW, what kind of evidence would there have to be to convince you that there is a God?

Just any God? Why not the Christian God? After all, if you can show that Christ rose from the dead, you pretty much get the whole enchilada.

Merely show me that the "Why die for a lie?" argument is not a lie. Show me ONE person who is attested to have witnessed the resurrection of Christ, and was later given the opportunity to recant his faith, but refused and faced torture and execution. Do that, and I will seriously consider Christianity. Show me TWO or THREE, and I would be fairly compelled.

But you can't, of course. I already made a thread on that and Christians whined that my expectations were way too high. Lol, pretty sad!

Again, you state an assertion as if it is evidence or reason.

I wouldn't call that an assertion. You even admitted above that you were confused.

Again, you state an assertion as if it is evidence or reason.

Read it again then. I gave reasons. I said you think you have it all figured out, therefore you are probably experiencing the Dunning-Kruger effect. You can disagree with my assessment, as those who are under the effect always do, but that doesn't mean I've provided no supporting evidence.

 

[MrsFoundit]

Join the club! I lost count on how many times that we believers only believe in God for some "wish fulfillment", which is far more offensive. Would you consider that to be wrong?

I believe this is offensive because it is presumptuous amateur psychology.

Since you were raised as a Christian, devoted to the study of scripture, would it be safe to say that you were raised as a Bible-believing, evangelical, even maybe a fundamentalist Christian? So why did you not try other parts of Christianity? Also, could it possibly be that you are rebelling against your upbringing? How was your relationship with your parents, especially your father? Some atheist and agnostics project their resentments of their father onto the Father God. If your relationship with your relationship with your parents was not that good, could this have been an influence in your rebellion?

I believe this offensive because it is presumptuous amateur psychology.

It is offensive either way around, surely?

 

[Ophiolite]

I did not mean to attack you personally.

I understand that those things we are passionate about may be spoken of passionately. I was giving you heads up on the tone of that particular segment of your post.

Join the club! I lost count on how many times that we believers only believe in God for some "wish fulfillment", which is far more offensive. Would you consider that to be wrong?

I'm not sure in what way you think the way you have been unfairly treated would somehow excuse you for treating me in a similar way. But don't lose sleep over it.

Your very quote of mine contradicts this:

You are assuming that there is no substantive argument. You assume that atheism is true in order to say that is no evidence for Christianity, something which I am sure that more Christians on this forum would disagree

I did not write you stated there was no evidence for the teachings of Christianity, but that you stated there is no substantive argument

There are your words, which I have underlined in your own quote. That is what I was responding to. It seems very clear that you think I assume atheism is true in order to say that [there] is no evidence for Christianity. I don't understand what you are trying to argue here.

My bad. I get so many responses from atheists that I overlooked that you are an agnostic.

Your bad in more ways than one. There probably are atheists that use the argument I described as "a fatuous, illogical argument that could only realistically be produced by a dolt", but you give the impression that you think many (most? all?) atheists think that way. i.e. that they assume atheism is true.

My profile, accurately, identifies me as agnostic, but in relation to the Christian God, or any other currently named Gods I am wholeheartedly atheist. (I have clarified this point on the forum each time it might be relevant to the discussion.)

OK. But then I have more questions.

Since you were raised as a Christian, devoted to the study of scripture, would it be safe to say that you were raised as a Bible-believing, evangelical, even maybe a fundamentalist Christian?

I can't get my head around any Christian denomination not being Bible-believing, unless you mean insisting upon the literal interpretation of the words. If that's what you mean then The Church of Scotland was not (literal) Bible believing, nor evangelical or fundamentalist in the way I understand those terms today.

So why did you not try other parts of Christianity?

The ecumenical spirit within the Church made it appear quite unnecessary to try "other parts of Christianity". I was a Christian, not variety A, sub-type X7.

So why did you not try other parts of Christianity? Also, could it possibly be that you are rebelling against your upbringing? How was your relationship with your parents, especially your father? Some atheist and agnostics project their resentments of their father onto the Father God. If your relationship with your relationship with your parents was not that good, could this have been an influence in your rebellion?

These are not accusations - just questions. I am not looking for answers. I am not sure I would get a straight answer, anyway. I am just pointing out that your Christian upbringing could have worked against you.

I am sure I did an appropriate amount of rebellion for a teenager of the time, but I'm amused by your theorising here.

I was raised as a Christian, but that raising was via routine Church attendance, regular Bible reading, participation in after-school Bible study, the example of my elder sister and the simple, but honest belief of my mother. My father was supportive of all this, but not in any way active. Neither parent attended Church. It was the kind of well disciplined, loving environment that really doesn't produce the targets or the desire for significant rebellion.

I got on well with my father. Indeed, reflecting on it for this post I realise we got on very well. He was a gentlemen, in all the positive senses of the word and I have always sought to emulate those, often not as successfully. Sorry packermann there are no dark corners lurking in my childhood.

I know you said you were not looking for answers, but I am trying to guide you to the understanding that my rejection of Christianity was not taken lightly and was not some test-book example of teenage angst.

What kind of meaningful evidence would convince you that God existence is plausible?

Excellent question. A coded message in our DNA? Some bona fide, irrefutable miracles? A personal burning bush? A difference in our fundamental understanding of the universe that pointed towards a Creator.

 

[Ophiolite]

This is offensive because it is presumptuous amateur psychology. (Plus, maybe a bit personal as questions go.)

It is offensive either way around, surely?

Except that I wasn't offended. I was amused by how far of track packermann was. And I appreciated the opportunity to reflect upon that period in my life. But it was certainly potentially offensive.

 

[Silmarien]

I don't see how this is relevant.

• I do not agree with those who might reject evidence on the basis it is indirect. It is, when singular, less convincing, but it is still valid.
• I would consider indirect observation to be a subset of empirical evidence, so we may have another semantic distinction between us.
• But, accepting there is both direct (empirical) and indirect evidence, I would add a third category of extrapolation of known laws and observations, but perhaps that what you mean by "indirect".
• While we are at it we should also note that the absence of certain kinds of evidence is also evidence. ("Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence" is a cute and often useful aphorism, but it is not an absolute.)

Alright, I think we agree on all of these points, though I still find the use of the term "evidence" a little dangerous since the well has been well and truly poisoned by those who do use the word in a narrow, often inconsistent fashion. You have more of a right to the word than most, but it's still going to lead to misunderstanding.

Well, I've typed then deleted multiple responses to this, but have come up with "Why? Why would you think that? "
I consider something plausible when the evidence in support of it outweighs the evidence against it. That test fails when the evidence for it is minimal, or weak, or both.

I'm understanding "not plausible" to mean "implausible," since I think that is the normal understanding of the term. This entails that the evidence against outweights the evidence for, since if the two are considered equal, people usually don't toss around the word "plausible" at all.

Rather than arguing over word choice, I think it'd be easier if I just asked how likely you think it is that the Christian God exists, on a scale of 0-10? 0 being impossible, 10 being completely sure, and 5 being a coin toss.

If your number is lower than 5, then we have similar understandings of the words "not plausible."

Again, we have different perceptions. I didn't dodge the OPs argument. I dealt with it directly. His chain of logic is broken and nothing more need be said. The evidentiary standard was either an aside, or an adjunct to the demonstration of the broken logic chain, or both.

I don't really see a chain of logic in the OP to be broken. It strikes me as more of an observation than an argument, but the take away point seems to be that arguments on both sides can be waved away as fallacious. I do very often see the same atheists make objections to theistic arguments which would tear down the entirety of modern science if used consistently, and then turn around and make emotional arguments against theism, so I agree with the OP that this is the normal modus operandi around here.

I don't think that "I lack belief because I am unconvinced by the evidence" is a psychologically tenable position. I have run across skeptics who take it so far that I can barely get them to admit that they don't think that magic is real, but for anyone who is still rational, there is going to be some chain of reasoning underlying their position. This means if the response to "your reasoning is fallacious" is effectively "there is no reasoning to be fallacious," I get worried.

In the interests of saving time, I'm going to look into my crystal ball and try to guess what you're thinking. Given everything that you've said here and elsewhere, my suspicion is that the number you'd give me to the question above is between a 1 and a 3, and that you might actually cite absence of evidence as evidence against. Assuming this is true, it would move you beyond the simple statement that you see no meaningful evidence to support such a claim, since it takes additional reasoning to get from "absence of evidence" to "evidence of absence."

Note: I said earlier that I would reply during the weekend. I was distracted by some minor personal matters, so I hope you will excuse the delay.

No worries.