Atheist vs Theist Argument Fallacy?

I am on a discussion chat called Disqus. There are many topics, but I am mostly drawn to the question of God on the religious channel. My issue is the Theist argument against the Atheist argument. In most theist arguments the debater will try and prove the reasons for their belief. Which is quite a challenge for those that depend heavily on religious text. But the Atheist argument seems to have no evidence of their own. Their whole defense is to discredit the opposing view. That there is no God because the Bible is impossible to believe. And anyone that still does is delusional or Gullible. I think there is a fallacy to this type of logic, but I don't know what it is?

Hi! This is a question for the ages, and I think it's more a question of metaphysics than of logic.

However, in argumentation and debate theory, the side that states a point has an obligation to prove it. This is called "burden of proof." The speaker who wishes to disprove the point can either (a) give evidence to the opposite point or (b) say the the original argument failed to meet the burden of proof. In your example, you are saying that the people who believe in God have not met their burden of proof. In that case, the atheist doesn't need evidence of his/her own, but merely points out that the believer has not met the burden of proof.

However, if the atheist makes a positive statement that God does NOT exist, then the atheist does have a burden of proof.

On the side, however, philosophers have argued about this dispute for centuries and have gotten pretty much nowhere. So, whichever side you are on, best of luck to you.

There is a fallacy "appeal to ignorance" that might apply here. This is widely misunderstood. The point is that if we don't know whether God exists, the only rational course is to not believe it one way or another. If we don't know, we don't know.

P.S. I'm a believer myself, but those are the philosophical/argumentation issues as I see them. Thanks for writing. You gave me food for thought.

Showing, successfully, that your opponent is in error (by showing that one or more of their premises is false, that their argument is logically unsound, or both) does not in itself show that your own position is correct. You need your own valid argument to establish the truth of your position. If the theists can successfully show that the atheists' arguments are unsound does not establish the truth of the theists' position (atheists may come up with a sound argument at a later time). Since this is a binary position (either there is a deity or there is not), the only hope for this tack is for theists to show that they can show to be false *all and every possible argument* that atheists could ever advance. Maybe there is a way to do that, but I am sceptical on this point until shown a sound proof. One line of attack may be to show that with respect to one or more attributes of God that theists *must* deploy in any possible argument (any? all arguments?), that these attributes could never be instantiated in the sort of reality that we inhabit. This appears to be attempting to move the argument from metaphysics to science if, for instance, atheists wish to argue that God must have an infinite density.

Hi John,

The fallacy I expect you are thinking of would be Shifting The Burden of Proof, which is where someone refuses to offer evidence to back up their claim, but instead demands that you prove them wrong. It doesn't quite fit in the scenario you mentioned, however, because it's the Theists that are making a claim.

It's actually really unusual for an Atheist to say something like "There is no God, because the Bible is impossible to believe". If an Atheist did say that, they would not be making a good argument. The unbelievability of the Bible points to the God of the Bible not being real, but not the non-existence of any God.

Atheists who are being intellectually honest and careful about what they say will generally say something like "There is not enough evidence to convince me there is a God". Some might go further and posit that all the Gods so far proposed by Theists are logically inconsistent and have no evidence to back them up, so there is no reason to believe them. Some may use all of this reasoning to decide that for all practical purposes the possibility of 'God' existing is so small that they may as well live as if there is no God, because it doesn't seem to make any difference. This, I think, is the prevailing view of those who might casually say "there is no God" while actually meaning they see no reason to believe in one.

The point is, providing evidence for something not existing is basically impossible without, as you put it, 'discrediting the opposing view'. If you were trying to prove that mermaids didn't exist you might point out that there have been no credible sightings in modern times, no pictures or video despite the ubiquity of camera phones, and that it doesn't make any biological sense for an animal to be part mammal and part fish.

However, if you were trying to prove that speckleyers don't exist, you would have a significantly more difficult time, since you don't know what properties speckleyers are thought to have. Because I just made them up. If I tell you a speckleyer is a 12,000 year old furry creature that can only survive by eating Hershey bars, you might point out that Hershey bars didn't exist 12,000 years ago. I might then retort "You're just trying to discredit my evidence - where is your own evidence that speckleyers don't exist?"

Do you see the problem?

Gods become difficult to believe when men define their properties. Those properties tend to be either logically inconsistent or incompatible with our observations of the world, so we say they do not provide evidence of that specific God's existence. Since no God so far has passed this quite basic test (we do, after all, believe in plenty of stuff that we DO see evidence for), we conclude that none of them exist - while allowing for the possibility that genuine evidence could change our minds.

In most theist arguments the debater will try and prove the reasons for their belief.

Theists will attempt to provide evidence for their belief or justify their belief with reasons. Before entering a debate about God, make sure you understand the claim.

But the Atheist argument seems to have no evidence of their own.

Evidence of what? If the theist is claiming that they have sufficient reasons to believe that God exists, they are making a claim that must be supported. The opposite would be "I am not convinced by the evidence that I have seen to believe that God exists." So to ask an atheist to provide evidence that they aren't convinced by the evidence they have seen borders on the absurd.

Their whole defense is to discredit the opposing view. That there is no God because the Bible is impossible to believe.

This would be the appeal to incredulity . "I can't believe it so it must be false." This is also factually incorrect. Clearly, many people believe in the Bible so it is not impossible to believe. Do make sure you are not creating a strawman here and this is what the atheist is actually saying. I find it difficult to imagine that someone would make this argument (of course, my lack of imagination doesn't make it so!).

And anyone that still does is delusional or Gullible.

This is just an insult or at best, an opinion.

Dear John, the armchair philosopher,

I don't think you could have hoped for four better responses than offered above. They're all quite deliberate and well-informed. Nevertheless, I find it
interesting that you single out the atheist argument as the weakest based on an entirely illogical conclusion.

In most theist arguments the debater will try and prove the reasons for their belief. Which is quite a challenge for those that depend heavily on religious text. But the Atheist argument seems to have no evidence of their own.

Your first error is by conflating proof of 'reasons for their belief' with evidence for their belief. They're two different goals.

If I were to put it into a syllogism it would be something like this

X: For theists, the Bible is evidence of God's existence.
Y Atheists don't have their own version of the Bible, or believe in any religious text
Therefore, atheists have no proof or evidence that God doesn't exist

You seem to be implying that having a religious text is reasonable "proof" for supernatural claims, and therefore not having or believing in a religious text is tantamount to having no evidence. That's a False Equivalence right there. One doesn't need to argue from a special book or text to dismiss an improbable or extraordinary claim. As both Carl Sagan and 'Hitchens' Razor' informs us, respectively: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, or, What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

X is both a fallacy of Special Pleading, and an Appeal to Personal belief. While it may be true that some theists believe the Bible to be irrefutable evidence of God's existence, it is only true to those who believe it. Dr. Bo provides an apt example of a Special Pleading as such:

"Superstition is a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation -- unless it is astrology."

He goes on to write:

Explanation: It has been said that one’s superstition is another’s faith. The standard of superstition has been defined by the person and violated by astrology. However, while the person in the example rejects all other sources of superstition using certain criteria, the superstitious belief of their preference is exempt from these criteria."

All you need to do is replace astrology with the Bible and apply it to your question. "Superstition is a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation -- unless it is the Bible."

Just because some believe the Bible to be the inerrant word of God and therefore proof of His existence does not make it true.

But the Atheist argument seems to have no evidence of their own

Why? Because they have no Bible? I think we've established they don't need one, and two, a religious text is neither evidence nor proof of anything. It may be a reason to believe, but it is not proof or evidence in any shape or form that God exists. Therefore not having or believing in a religious text does not mean there is no evidence to support the atheist view.

Apart from all of this there is overwhelming evidence to support the idea that while there may or may not be a Supreme Creator, scientists have presented overwhelming evidence through evolution by natural selection and across a wide array of scientific disciplines that having a divine creator is not only a messy proposition, it is totally unnecessary for creation.