I wonder if there's any way to make people aware that the argument from ignorance is a fallacy, and doesn't work.
Tarrin wrote:Hi, I have been thinking a bit about this, but isn't the argument from ignorance equally applicable to theists or atheists? What I mean is that for theists the argument is "I do not know, therefore god" and for the atheist "I do not know, therefore no god". Maybe it goes by a different name for atheism, but I do not think that is a valid argument in either case really.
DjVortex wrote:The default position on extraordinary claims is (well, should be) to not accept them until proper evidence is presented and examined. It doesn't matter what it might be. There's no argument being presented here (much less argument from ignorance). There's simply a demand to see proper evidence.
Tarrin wrote: what would you consider as "proper evidence" for an abstract idea?
On the same side, what would you consider "proper evidence" against an abstract idea?
dobbie wrote:My answer: That there’s no proper evidence.
dobbie wrote:So the general atheist position is one of agnostic-atheism.
And the general atheist considers the general theist to be an agnostic-theist.
Tarrin wrote:Is the disbelief rooted in the same sort of argument, "You cannot disprove X" and "You cannot prove Y"? Both of these seem to be arguments from ignorance.
I agree, but what would you consider as "proper evidence" for an abstract idea?
I was not even aware that agnostic-theists existed, sort of an oxymoron to me
DjVortex wrote:Note that disbelief is not a claim, and hence there's no argument being presented in support for such a nonexistent claim.
Tarrin wrote:Why is disbelief not a claim when it requires justification?
Tarrin wrote:So, just to make sure I understand, the burden of proof in theological debates is placed upon the party asserting that X is true, correct? However, just the statement "that is not proof, I remain unconvinced" as in the agnostic case does not have to be proven?
I guess my question then is why it is decided that "because" is a sufficient answer for disbelief, but not for belief? I know that the answer lies in the burden of proof which you have mentioned, but it just seems arbitrary to me that it was chosen to be placed on one stance and not the other.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest