You're conflating the multiple versions of atheism in order to create a straw man. Atheists who lack belief because there is no evidence are not asserting the claim that no gods exist, and so they are not making the argument from ignorance that you suggest. Strong atheists who do assert that gods do not exist often use other arguments to support their assertion. I'm sure that there are some, perhaps even a surprisingly large number of strong atheists who hold that no gods exist because there isn't any evidence for them. In some cases, that's merely a symptom of their inability to identify the other reasons besides lack of evidence which they are unconsciously drawing upon. However, I'm sure your argument validly describes some atheists. In that respect, your OP is simply wrong because some atheists doesn't define what atheism per se is, especially if they are in the minority. The real error you made in your OP is attributing the argument from ignorance fallacy to weak atheists, who simply do not believe, rather than strong atheists for whom it might be a problem. It's such moronic missteps which pretty much consign you to the category of unintentional troll.

Watching the video after having made my remarks, I note that the video gets it right in the exact way that you do not. Which just goes to show that you are so buttfuckingly stupid that you can't even follow a 1-1/2 minute video on elementary logic correctly without making a major blunder.

'It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for supposing it is true.' - Russell

Boru

(January 27, 2019 at 6:41 am)The Valkyrie Wrote: No, atheism rests on the non belief in gods.

The fallacies the religious and, it seems, some 'agnostics' use just reinforce that foundation.

Well, not just that, but the biggest mistake theist make is to assume we are always on the same page on every single issue, political, religious or economics, and that is simply false.

I am a liberal atheist. But, I am not so politically correct as to refrain from blaspheming religion. I am an atheist, but I do not want Cuba or Venezuela. I am an atheist, but also hate "Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged "fuck you I got mine" economics. And while I am for gun safety laws, I am not for banning 100% of all models. I do know other atheists whom worship firearms on par with right wing theists.

There is no "one size fits all" for even atheists. If a believer want to know what an individual atheist thinks on any given topic, they should remember that is ONLY that individual atheist's view.

The only thing all atheists have in common is "off" on god claims, outside that, we are just as diverse in our class status, races, nationalities, political views and economic views.

You can't prove a negative.

An argument containing one of the myriad fallacies is not untrue because of it.

The best we can do is watch theists banging heads on a wall. May their god make them pillows.

(January 27, 2019 at 3:27 am)Agnostico Wrote: Atheism rests on Argumentum ad Ignorantium also known as Appeal to Ignorance fallacy...
Eg... "We don't believe there are Gods cos no one can prove it".

According to your linked video, an Argumentum ad Ignorantiam is "Claiming that simply because something has not yet been proven that it is not the case."  It does not mean "We don't believe in X because no one can prove it."  This is because when atheists make a similar argument, they are not saying "God doesn't exist because there is no proof."  They are saying "I won't believe God exists if there is no proof" -- a completely reasonable position.

We have many other arguments to support the positive claim that God doesn't exist.  Atheism doesn't rest on one argument alone, and each argument tackles a different aspect of the question.

trying to shift the burden of proof again are we?

(January 28, 2019 at 1:28 pm)Sal Wrote: You can't prove a negative.

I get tired of reading this. Of COURSE you can prove a negative.

Boru

Can prove god doesn't exist 


The fact that I can sleep in on Sunday morning is enough proof for me.


...

Prove otherwise.