Why do atheists fall prey to the "argument from ignorance"?

Question

In one of my other questions Futprinz responded with:

>>>"That in itself is faulty logic because lack of evidence does not equate to non-existence."

Wrong. Prove to me leprechauns don't exist. Go ahead, prove it.

EPIC FAIL.<<<

So, why do atheists fall prey to the same logical fallacies they are arguing against?

From Wikipedia:

Argument from ignorance

The two most common forms of the argument from ignorance, both fallacious, can be reduced to the following form:

* Something is currently unexplained or insufficiently understood or explained, so it is not (or must not be) true.

* Because there appears to be a lack of evidence for one hypothesis, another chosen hypothesis is therefore considered proven.

Examples:

* 1. "You can't prove God doesn't exist, so God exists."

* 2. "You can't prove God does exist, so God doesn't exist."

Answer 1

People need to specify.

A vague &quot;god&quot;existing is impossible to disprove.The bible,and events in it,are quite easily shown to be utter hogwash.I really wish people would get over thinking an argument for (A) god is an argument for (THEIR) god.It isn&#039;t.Generally,it&#039;s an argument against their version

Answer 2

This really only applies to strong atheists. I&#039;m a weak one.

Answer 3

Thank you Cpt. Bunkham for avoiding the pitfalls of sophistry and also for

laying down the logical line in the sand in this discussion.  Mystics know that the ever lasting quest IS the the practice, the worship, the doctrine, the creedless creed.   I just think that the questioner is doing his quest by confronting &quot;the other&quot; i.e. people he calls atheists which is the bind of religion and is why so many of them,  thinking they have it and you don&#039;t, never get it. ( It can&#039;t be &quot;got&quot;  only sought for)   Well, to each his own practice.

Answer 4

Essentially you are looking at philosophic arguments for/against the existence of God.

Even metaphysically one could not answer that question here.

Essentially, I believe because I believe.

Almost every philosopher or theologian would agree on the limits of language.

All arguments get to a certain point, and unless &quot;scientific proof&quot; is provided, then we a deadlocked.

But, its a nice way to kill Friday afternoon, isn&#039;t it?

All the best.

Answer 5

No-one can prove a negative.  In the absence of such proof the default position is that something does not exist.  This is an accepted principle agreed not only by scientists but also by philosophers and theologians and is based on the premise that if you wish to prove something doesn&#039;t exist you can never, in effect, stop looking for it.

Anyone who states something exists, including god, therefore places the burden of proof on themselves.

I don&#039;t need to prove god does not exist because I am not the one making unsupportable assertions about a non-existent super-being that loves us all but will burn us for all eternity for upsetting him.

So until you can prove god exists there is no such thing as god.

On the subject of argument from ignorance, it is frequently religionsists who are observed using such a stance.  It often goes something like this:-

1. Life and the Universe is so amazing that I personally cannot imagine how it was all created using just physics, chemistry and biology

2. As I am unable to imagine or grasp the Scientific Theories of the Big Bang, Abiogenesis and Evolution (which have been devised and tested by the most intelligent and qualified people on the planet) they must be false

3. As my lack of understanding renders the above theories false, the only only alternative I can personally imagine is that god created it all and therefore god exists.

duh! Duh!! DUH!!!

[and anyone quoting from Wikipedia on any subject is plumbing the depths of desperation]

Answer 6

The absence of evidence for the existence of a god is indeed not a logical proof of gods&#039; nonexistence.  But absolute logical certainty is not the standard of proof any of us actually require for our beliefs.  And that appears to be what Futprinz was pointing out, that when it comes to other supernatural claims (such as leprechauns) the complete lack of evidence is considered sufficient reason to say that such claims are false, at least until evidence is found.

Answer 7

You apparently don&#039;t understand.  Unless YOU provide evidence for the existence of something, the status quo is that it does not exist.  Otherwise, you would need to believe everything anyone ever told you.  It&#039;s called being discriminatory.  You should have learned that in Kindergarten.  

Answer 8

Good point...

The reason I know God exists is because I spoke with Him this morning.

Answer 9

You&#039;re amazingly annoying.

I am an atheist because I lack belief in gods.  I do not deny the possibility of gods, merely any evidence of their existence.  

Answer 10

I truly equate God with imaginary beings. I don&#039;t think it is faulty logic because some imaginary beings have more proof of existence than God.

Answer 11

Isn&#039;t that reversible though and applicable to the religious as well? To insist something is true you need proof.

This argument is why I&#039;m agnostic not atheist.

Answer 12

&gt;&gt;&gt;Why do atheists fall prey to the &quot;argument from ignorance&quot;?

I can only assume that &quot;irony&quot;, is not a word found in your vocabulary.

&gt;&gt;&gt;Argument from ignorance

&gt;&gt;&gt;The two most common forms of the argument from ignorance, both fallacious, can be reduced to the following form:

&gt;&gt;&gt;* Something is currently unexplained or insufficiently understood or explained, so it is not (or must not be) true.

Which is it&#039;s self, a fallacy, as you are assuming that there is something there to understand, or explain, in the absence of all objective evidence.

In fact, all you have is another fallacy, the Band Wagon, (Argumentum ad Numerum) fallacy.  (There must be something there because so many people believe it)

&gt;&gt;&gt;* Because there appears to be a lack of evidence for one hypothesis, another chosen hypothesis is therefore considered proven.

Then there is the semantic fallacy.

Please explain how you have the &quot;appearance&quot; of absence of evidence.

&gt;&gt;&gt;Examples:

&gt;&gt;&gt;* 1. &quot;You can&#039;t prove God doesn&#039;t exist, so God exists.&quot;

&gt;&gt;&gt;* 2. &quot;You can&#039;t prove God does exist, so God doesn&#039;t exist.&quot;

When have you ever known any theist, or atheist, to use those arguments?

And I am not refering to, as yet, uneducated children, or strolling idiots.

Even on these boards, where both catagories are in good supply, those arguments are rare.

The only place that I have ever seen those arguments, is when people like your self produce them as examples of fallacious arguments, as used by atheists and christians, but never citing any actual events where either of these arguments was seriously offered.

I suspect that you are your self, falling victim to, what is sometimes called the Fallacist&#039;s Fallacy.

The nearest  fallacy that one normaly finds, from theists, is &quot;Pascals Wager&quot;

Basically: There is no evidence, but why take the chance.

Atheists OTOH tend to demand objective evidence, on the logical assumption that something that exists leaves evidence.

The demand might well be called fallacious, and/or dishonest, by some theists, from the POV, that we are demanding evidence that we do know the theist cannot produce.

Answer 13

You didn&#039;t do well in logic class, did you?

There does not &quot;appear&quot; to be lack of evidence. There is no evidence. What is true of gods is also true of leprechauns. If you are going to argue that we cannot discount the possibility of gods, you must also accept the same to be true of leprechauns. Their nonexistence is not an alternate theory, shnookums. It is a default. The only reason you have for asserting otherwise is your desire to elevate one above the other. You have already accepted your brainwashing as truth and are attempting to bend logic to feed your delusion. Sorry, it does not work that way. Go look up the scientific method and then you can get back to us.  

Answer 14

&quot; lack of evidence does not equate to non-existence.&quot;

That is a completely true statement.  

&quot;Wrong. Prove to me leprechauns don&#039;t exist. Go ahead, prove it.&quot;

I can only prove that leprachauns probably don&#039;t exist... that is all science can do.

&quot;Some years ago I had a conversation with a layman about flying saucers — because I am scientific I know all about flying saucers! I said &quot;I don&#039;t think there are flying saucers&#039;. So my antagonist said, &quot;Is it impossible that there are flying saucers? Can you prove that it&#039;s impossible?&quot; &quot;No&quot;, I said, &quot;I can&#039;t prove it&#039;s impossible. It&#039;s just very unlikely&quot;. At that he said, &quot;You are very unscientific. If you can&#039;t prove it impossible then how can you say that it&#039;s unlikely?&quot; But that is the way that is scientific. It is scientific only to say what is more likely and what less likely, and not to be proving all the time the possible and impossible. To define what I mean, I might have said to him, &quot;Listen, I mean that from my knowledge of the world that I see around me, I think that it is much more likely that the reports of flying saucers are the results of the known irrational characteristics of terrestrial intelligence than of the unknown rational efforts of extra-terrestrial intelligence.&quot; It is just more likely. That is all.&quot; - Richard Feynman.&#039;

Substitute God for flying saucers in the above quote and you have a true scientific opinion on god.

Answer 15

God isn&#039;t unexplained or not understood, there&#039;s libraries of books written about him. It&#039;s just all rubbish.

Answer 16

In anthropology, we have a saying &quot;absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence.&quot;  It simply cannot be proved either way.  However, burden of proof does exist.  You can believe whatever you want about something, but you cannot expect others to believe it unless you put forth evidence.  So you say God exists.  I say I have not seen any evidence for him, so do I do not believe he does.  Maybe he does and maybe he doesn&#039;t.  But the fact that absence of evidence doesn&#039;t equal evidence of absense doesn&#039;t mean I should blindly accept it.  See?

Answer 17

I think that you are overthinking this. Atheists do not claim with 100% certainty that any given invisible fairy does not exist. We simply state that with zero evidence to support their imaginary fairy friends, there is zero reason to do more than laugh at silly claims that such fairies do exist.

Answer 18

So we should all become agnostics or else consider our selves fallacious people?