Argumentum ad Ignorantium Fallacy

[Agnostico]

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".
Enjoy...

[Belacqua]

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".
Enjoy...

Hey, that's not fair. You're over-simplifying. 

Sometimes we use the argument from personal incredulity, or even the appeal to nature fallacy.

[Deesse23]

You are really, really bad at trolling.

Game over, insert coin troll to continue

[bennyboy]

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".
Enjoy...

You got it wrong.  Appeal to ignorance is the attempt to use lack of knowledge to PROVE something is true.

Refusing to believe an assertion because the person cannot prove their assertion isn't an appeal to ignorance.  It's just good common sense.

[downbeatplumb]

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".
Enjoy...

I like to have evidence for things that I believe in.
And what is a god anyway?

[EgoDeath]

You can claim there is a magical space elf that visits you at night. Without evidence of a nocturnal magical space elf, I have no reason to believe one exists.

You can claim there is a unicorn that you ride to work every. Without evidence of the unicorn, I have no reason to believe one exists.

You can claim that you have access to literature which explains how to turn iron into gold. Without evidence of these books or evidence of your riches, I have no reason to believe you have obtained such alchemical knowledge.

You can claim that some ultimate being with superpowers created our universe and watches over our lives. Without evidence of this being I have no reason to believe it exists.

The fact that our existence cannot be fully explained is not enough to accept that there is a god or divine creator. In fact, it's not even a start; it certainly isn't enough to claim that it is evidence of a divine creator. The fact that we don't understand why anything exists at all does not mean there must be some creator or intelligence behind existence. It simply doesn't. These questions, as meaningless as they may be, are just that: questions. That's it. That these questions exist don't suddenly give us the authority to start making claims about divine beings. There's no reason to believe that god is an explanation for our existence any more than the idea that maybe our universe is just a flame flickering on a candle somewhere inside some alternate reality.

There are a million and one explanations you could come up with to explain things; it doesn't mean any of them make sense or even need to be taken seriously. "God" is just another silly way that people try to explain things they don't understand.

[The Valkyrie]

No, atheism rests on the non belief in gods.

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

[LastPoet]

Fallacies arise from informal logic, mostly due to lack of precise definitions.

Theist: there is a god way above the human mind hability of understanding, but I am telling you it exists because I proclaim it.

Atheist: I don't believe such a claim. While human knowledge is faulty, I reserve the burden to you, to provide the means to verify, that such a thing exists, whatever that is. The problem is such a thing can't be verified.

[GUBU]

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".
Enjoy...

You're fractally wrong there. But it's not surprising because you're a luddite idiot.

[Brian37]

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".
Enjoy...

You got it wrong.  Appeal to ignorance is the attempt to use lack of knowledge to PROVE something is true.

Refusing to believe an assertion because the person cannot prove their assertion isn't an appeal to ignorance.  It's just good common sense.

^^^^^^ No kidding. How many spend time trying to debunk claims of the tooth fairy? The problem with "prove it isn't true", for that to work, then that means all claims are equally true by default, and nobody in reality does that. Not all claims are equally true by default. That is why in good logic, and even in scientific method, it is up to the claimant to prove what they claim.

I also refuse to blindly swallow claims of Apollo or Yoda for that matter.