What fallacy is this if any? Strawman, Definist, reframing?
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
So, I try to use the claim that as an atheist
Me:
I do not believe there is no God. I just don't believe there is one.
Them:
That ain't atheism
Me:
Why not?
Them:
It doesn't negate the possible nor the necessary existence of gods. It's antichristian for example if anything
Me:
how is it anti? it's no denial.
Them:
Christian God is not a God
Sounds like denial
Me:
I never said christian god is not god.
Them:
"I do not believe there is no God, I just don't believe their (insert x religion) is one"
Me:
Beleiving there is no God and just not having a belief that there is one are two different things.
Them
No
Me:
Beleiving there is no God and just not having a belief that there is one are two different things.
Them:
Correct, but that isn't the case here.
Me:
Why not?
Them:
I don't believe that x is true" is not absence of belief.
Me:
That is the case here.
Them:
If I were to mean that, I would say that I don't have a ideological position about x matter, saying that I don't believe in x as meaning the former is bollocks.
Me:
are you able to carify what you mean? I am not entirely sure I understand you right. Right now, it sounds like you are saying that everyone has some ideological position.
Them:
I don't believe in x being true" is never understood to refer to an absence of belief about whether x is true of false, that's because it is written "x being true", which means that if you dont believe that x is true, then you must believe x is false, since believing in x not being true is a belief. "... I just don't believe their God is one (true God)" is in the form of "I don't believe in x being true" as talked above
I am almost certain that the fallacious part is on the other party here. The claim right at the beginning just means you don't possess a belief that a God exists but nor do you possess a belief that God doesn't exist. And just because you don't yet believe something to be true does not automatically mean you believe it to be false right?
Comments on Question
Much could be picked apart about this, but let me zero in on one issue that ruins the flow of conversation and stares out at me like broccoli caught in my dinner guest’s teeth. At the onset, you state that “I do not believe there is no God. I just don't believe there is one.” The fourth time that your interlocutor speaks he attempts to repeat your position back to you, but the words you have typed into his mouth reveal him as having heard you say “I do not believe there is no God, I just don't believe THEIR (insert x religion) is one.” He heard you as saying “their”, according to what you have typed into his mouth, whereas what you actually meant was “there.” Amidst the rest of the chattering, this discrepancy, appearing more than once, is not rectified at any point.
I have had some success with saying, "You know how you know 'I don't believe you' isn't a claim?"
When I say, "God doesn't exist," it logically follows that you could respond with: "OK, prove it."
When I say, "I don't believe in God," it wouldn't make any sense to say, "Prove it." You'd be asking me to prove that I don't believe in God, which is not something that could be done beyond your believing me to be honest or not when I make the statement.
Answers
4Reading through this, it's a bit difficult to understand what point this person is trying to make aside from just being contrarian. In fact, they seem to switch positions. At first saying that you aren't a real atheist because you don't firmly believe there is no god, then ending by saying that your lack of belief necessitates a firm belief that there is no god.
In that respect, it's hard to tell whether they're committing the definist fallacy . They are using a widely accepted but incorrect definition of atheism, but it's difficult to tell whether they're really using that to advance a point.
What I'm primarily seeing shake out of this is that they just have an issue with the way you phrased your statement. Primarily that they think "I don't believe X" should mean "I believe the opposite of X" whereas you've used it to mean "I do not have enough information to convince me that X is true." Just the way the English language is, that statement on its own could be taken either way, but the meaning often becomes apparent with context. This is really just arguing semantics
I see an obvious strawman fallacy here when they claim that you're drawing a distinction between the Christian God and other gods when you've made no such statement. The only way I could see this being reasonable is if there's some context from before this exchange that they could have inferred this from.
The statement:
"I do not believe there is no God."
technically means that the person making the statement believes in God. But if the person making that statement doesn't understand what they are saying, and the intended meaning is that they are leaving open the possibility that there is a God, then the technical meaning of the sentence is different than the intended communication. If the person making that statement proclaims to be an atheist, then maybe they are unsure of their beliefs and are leaving open the possibility of proof that there is a God. One accepted definition of an agnostic is a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God. But if they didn't know the word or definition for agnostic, then they might be incorrectly calling themselves an atheist. Whatever the case may be, the very first sentence creates potential confusion. The situation is that there is a proclaimed atheist using a double negative in a sentence that technically means that they believe in God. Do they really understand what they are saying? That doesn't make any sense. They are contradicting themselves. I would call this poor communication. So, right from the start, the argument is being built on confusing and contradictory communication. Now let's consider the second sentence:
"I just don't believe there is one."
The technical meaning of that sentence is that they don't believe there is a God. Which contradicts the previous sentence. Even if the intended meaning of the first sentence was that they were leaving open the possibility of someone proving to them that there is a God, the second sentence contradicts that meaning as well. Because of the immediate problems with the first two sentences, trying to evaluate the rest of the conversation creates the risk that false validity will be inadvertently given to the starting point of the argument. If the first two sentences are assumed to be the premise of further statements, then the argument is being built on some confusing and contradictory thinking. I apologize that I don't have a named logical fallacy for my explanation, but I wanted to present my evaluation for consideration.
After some careful consideration the fallacies here are logical inconsistency and false dichotomy. Then interlocutor is implying my argument is this:
1. I do not believe x is not true.
2. Nor do I believe x is true.
3. Therefore I believe x is false.
Both premises make up the whole argument and then conclusion doesn't follow from them.
If we remove the the first premise the false dichotomy becomes more clear.
1. I do not believe x is true.
2. Therefore I believe x is false.
= False dichotomy. Just because I do not believe x is true does it necessarily or even absolutely follow that I believe x is false. I may not know anything about x, I may be indifferent or I may not have enough information to make a judgement.
To use an analogy just because I do not believe it will rain tomorrow does not mean I believe it won't rain. I could just not have enough info on the matter and hence no belief about it either way AKA absence of belief.
If we go back to just using the x notation for the statement to logically valid it should be:
1. I do not believe x is not true.
2. Nor do I believe x is true.
3. Therefore, I have no belief regarding the falsity or truth value of x.
And this reads exactly the same way as:
1. I do not believe God does not exist.
2. Nor do I believe God does exist.
3. Therefore I have no belief regarding the falsity or truth value of the existence of God.
Basically here no affirmation or denial regarding the existence of a diety is made. Or to put it another way no affirmation is being made about the existence or non-existence of x (or God).
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course
If you don't believe something exists and you don't believe that something does not exist, I would suggest expressing that pair of non-beliefs as "I don't know whether that something exists". Anything else is prone to misconceptions, because when you say for example "I don't believe in vampires", it is in day-to-day conversations (something that does not apply in formal logic) implied that you believe there are no vampires. I think people, in general, say "I don't know" when they're uncertain rather than "I don't believe".