What is wrong with this argument.

[lawtonfogle]

An atheist claims there is no proof for God. An agnostic claims there is not proof for God that he has seen. The atheist does not accept the fact that there could be proof he has not seen. This then makes him ignorant. So if one claims to be an atheist, not agnostic, is he not then ignorant of logic.

 

[lawtonfogle]

And if you try to post logic questions such as can God make a rock to big to lift, please think twice.

 

[FadingWhispers3]

The atheist does not accept the fact that there could be proof he has not seen.

Why should anyone be a theist before he/she comes across sufficient evidence that gods exist? It isn't that people deny that the possibility exists of proof. It is a conditional based on what evidence so far has been seen.

It is pure pragmatism to not put faith in things without being personally assured.

 

[Spinrad]

An atheist claims there is no proof for God. An agnostic claims there is not proof for God that he has seen. The atheist does not accept the fact that there could be proof he has not seen. This then makes him ignorant. So if one claims to be an atheist, not agnostic, is he not then ignorant of logic.

Problem: the atheist states that he has no reason, no proof to cause him to believe in God. The agnostic states that there IS no proof that can cause one to believe either way. The atheist only makes claims about the proofs he has experienced. The agnostic makes claims about proofs he has not.

 

[Spinrad]

(by the way, the above argument is flawed on purpose)

 

[AdamAnderson21]

Do you believe in pink elephants?

 

[AdamAnderson21]

If you don't, would you prefer me to call you stupid or ignorant?

 

[Maxwell511]

There are two reasons I don't believe.

1. I believe God to be a human construct due to logic flaws in all deities I've heard of and therefore without bases in reality. If you call me ignorant for this I will do the same to you if you deny any other religion.

2. I don't believe God to be a necessary condition for the existance of the universe.

 

[FSTDT]

An atheist claims there is no proof for God. An agnostic claims there is not proof for God that he has seen. The atheist does not accept the fact that there could be proof he has not seen. This then makes him ignorant. So if one claims to be an atheist, not agnostic, is he not then ignorant of logic.

The problem with that is just a matter of conflating definitions:
- atheism and theism has to do with what you believe. If you affirm the existence of at least one god then you are a theist, and if not you're an atheist.
- agnosticism has to do with know you know (or think you can know). A person who believes the existence and nature of god is knowable is gnostic, a person who believes the existence and nature of god is unknowable

Obviously, if an atheist believes that its possible to prove God exists or not then he is not an agnostic. But if the atheist denies that its possible to show how Gods could exist by science or logic, he is agnostic.

So, when you say "So if one claims to be an atheist, not agnostic, is he not then ignorant of logic", it doesnt make sense because a person can be an atheist and agnostic, or an atheist and a gnostic.

 

[In A Perfect World]

I'm an atheist because I haven't been presented with enough evidence to convince me that one or more deities exist.

 

[Arkanin]

Most atheists don't describe themselves as agnostic because, while technically true, it would be extremely misleading. We can't be certain there isn't an invisible leprechaun on our shoulders, so we don't truly know there isn't one on our shoulder, but that in itself does not mean there is any fence-sitting about the matter, and to characterize ourselves as agnostic about whether invisible leprechauns are on our shoulders would be profoundly dishonest. Atheists, then, aren't necessarilly not agnostic; rather, they're simply not fence-sitting, and their level of confidence that a god does not exist is substantially higher.

See my signature.

 

[Arkanin]

In other words, you could insist I call myself agnostic, but the term would be incredibly misleading and "atheist" is a far more comprehensible term with respect to its ability to describe my beliefs.

 

[David Gould]

The argument is a load of nonsense. Apart from that, though, it's fine.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

An atheist claims there is no proof for God.

False. An atheist merely states that he has not seen adequate proof for God's existence to convince him.

The atheist does not accept the fact that there could be proof he has not seen.

False again.

This then makes him ignorant.

So, using your false premises, you claim to have demonstrated that atheists are ignorant?

So if one claims to be an atheist, not agnostic, is he not then ignorant of logic.

SOMEBODY's ignorant of logic...

 

[Patzak]

An atheist claims there is no proof for God. An agnostic claims there is not proof for God that he has seen. The atheist does not accept the fact that there could be proof he has not seen. This then makes him ignorant. So if one claims to be an atheist, not agnostic, is he not then ignorant of logic.

The atheist claiming there's no proof of God is not ignorant of logic any more than someone claiming there's no proof of Zeus. In both cases there are people claiming personal spiritual experience and in both cases this cannot be accepted as proof since it is non-communicable/non-universal.

 

[""]

I'm an atheist because I haven't been presented with enough evidence to convince me that one or more deities exist.

But do you remain open to evidence if it were presented to you, or have you already made up your mind?
I'm not asking to belittle you or anything. I'm just curious. Some atheists that I have met, are open minded and want to hear about my beliefs (and the beliefs of others), in the hopes that perhaps they will come away with new information. Other atheists that I have met (and am friends with) are very set in their opinion that God does not exist, and do not care to discuss any information to the contrary. So I'm just curious about where you fit in to that... or even some where different that I haven't come across, perhaps.

 

[In A Perfect World]

But do you remain open to evidence if it were presented to you, or have you already made up your mind?
I'm not asking to belittle you or anything. I'm just curious. Some atheists that I have met, are open minded and want to hear about my beliefs (and the beliefs of others), in the hopes that perhaps they will come away with new information. Other atheists that I have met (and am friends with) are very set in their opinion that God does not exist, and do not care to discuss any information to the contrary. So I'm just curious about where you fit in to that... or even some where different that I haven't come across, perhaps.

I see where people believe evidence exists: testimonials, occurances, etc. But I don't really like testimonials. People claim that they've been abducted by aliens too.

 

[levi501]

The atheist does not accept the fact that there could be proof he has not seen.

false. Many atheist believe that there isn't a God and see no reason to believe but not all make absolute claims.

 

[The Seeker]

An atheist claims there is no proof for God. An agnostic claims there is not proof for God that he has seen. The atheist does not accept the fact that there could be proof he has not seen. This then makes him ignorant. So if one claims to be an atheist, not agnostic, is he not then ignorant of logic.

I find it quite ironic that you call atheists ignorant when you yourself display a fair ammount of ignorance regarding what the vast majority of atheists think. While I would say that I am reasonably certain that there is no God in the absence of positive evidence, I don't deny that there could be some evidence that I have not yet been made aware of, but believing a claim because there might just be evidence for it somewhere out there and I just haven't seem it yet would be absurd.

 

[elman]

There are two reasons I don't believe.

1. I believe God to be a human construct due to logic flaws in all deities I've heard of and therefore without bases in reality. If you call me ignorant for this I will do the same to you if you deny any other religion.

2. I don't believe God to be a necessary condition for the existance of the universe.

Do you believe God to be necessary to have a purpose to the univers and a reason for your eixtence other than the reasons a bug exists?