A False Dilemma, in Atheism

There's a massive difference between "I'm not going to convert to your point of view unless you can provide me with some evidence" and "I have seen no evidence of X, therefore that's proof that X doesn't exist." Although, funnily enough, you use the latter, fallacious argument, one you decide as irrational, to rule out the possibility of a moral basis without God. You haven't seen it, and argue that therefore it does not exist. Also, you are trying to substitute one fallacy for another. You are correctly deriding the argument from ignorance . . . while trying to replace it with an appeal to the majority.

 

'If you cannot prove God's existence, then He does not exist!'

This is the argument, presented.

Is it valid?
Or, is it a 'false dilemma'?

I am not attempting to 'prove!' anything, here, other than this argument is a false dilemma.

I gave some other possibilities, for this question, so i can only conclude the argument is a false dilemma.

I would need sound reasoning to refute this simple observation. Ad hom deflections, and moral outrage do not count as 'rational rebuttals'.

 

This is the argument as you've presented it. You haven't shown any atheists actually making that argument. But this is an invalid argument, as it is presented here.

 

The persistence of religion and spiritual belief throughout human history may have conferred an evolutionary advantage to those who believed.

It would strengthen group unity. Its members would be more willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of the rest. Group members would see others outside their group as less valuable strengthening membership in the group and having less empathy for members of the outside group. Religion would offer answers for the unknown, assuage fears of death, provide taboos and rules that the group should live by so interactions within the group remain stable and cooperative.
Then we are left centuries later with the proof vs disproof.....and the ensuing mental masturbation.

 

The ol' absence of evidence is not evidence of absence argument that is a foundational argument of both theists and agnostics.

Fact is that humans conjure up rationales and justifications for their god's existence outwith of any verifiable evidence. So the OP description of a false dilemma is itself fallacious in a way, since your descriptors are all unfalsifiable.

 

Your presentation of the dilemma is what it is false.

The actual dilemma is this: "If you cannot prove God's existence, there is no reason to believe it exists." Why would you believe something for which there is not empirical evidence?

 

Nevertheless, the REALITY of the universe is a REAL dichotomy:

• Goddidit
• Nuthindidit

Either there is a God/Creator/Cause for the universe,
OR.. there is not. Everything happened naturally by chance, with no supernatural intervention.

Based on these 2 basic possibilities, the argument:

'If you cannot prove God's existence, then He does not exist!'

..is a false dilemma, as other possibilities exist for a reason for God's obscurity.

The argument here is not, 'Prove God!' or, 'prove your premise!', as neither belief about the nature of the universe can be objectively proved.

 

Most atheists don't make that argument. Most atheists correctly state "If you cannot prove God's existence, then I have no reason to believe in its existence."

 

The logically valid version of the argument would be:

1. If God existed, then there would be evidence of his existence.
2. There is no evidence of his existence.
3. Therefore, God doesn't exist.

You can question the premises, but the form of the argument here is logically valid ("validity" in logic simply means that the argument is structured in such a way that if the premises are true, then the conclusion is true).

 

....and the ensuing mental masturbation

 

I'm pretty sure man would create a god whether there is one or not.

Moses left for a while to go up the mountain. When he returned, his people had already created a god. It can happen overnight! We see that happen all over. The Greek and Roman pantheons. The Prose Edda. The many eastern, South American and African religions. Astrology. The religions based on the Bible. The religions of the first peoples.

The idea that mankind wouldn't have a wide variety of gods just doesn't match human nature.

So, how do humans choose one god to follow so dogmatically? What is the argument that I should follow some specific god?

 

What religion a man shall have is a historical accident, quite as much as what language he shall speak.

George Santayana

 

So when Einstein said science without religion is lame, which religion was he talking about?

 

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." He was using general terms and he was wrong.

 

There is a third option. God could be a name for nature rather than a name for a specific sentient being. Perhaps we should be arguing our understanding of the laws of physics.

 

Reason..

It are hard, for progressive indoctrinees .

Why are modern products of education so fixed on mandates, instead of critical thinking? Why is 'Groupthink Loyalty!' more important to them than simple reasoning? Why cannot a very simple rational progression be followed, without moral indignation, and fanned up 'atheists vs Christians!' flame war memes?



I despair, at times, seeing reason and critical thinking cast upon the ash heap of human folly. It has brought so much, to the human experience yet is being replace by progressive propaganda and memorized talking points. Hysterical indoctrinees don't even read the posts, but filter everything through some memorized 'issue!' list, the deliver their canned response, and parrot their indoctrination.. then dance about with fist pumps declaring themselves, 'Winner!' I suppose all the trophies from irrational, relative competions has put everything as an 'Us vs Them!' competition, where groupthink loyalty, not Reason, is the Most Important Thing.

So, none of the clever members here see a 'false dilemma' in the statement i posted?

Judging from the responses, it seems not.

'You're the false dilemma!'
'Christians are stupid!'
'Your rong!! You dont werd it rite'
'Religion is stupid and superstitious!'

Assertions, fallacies, and deflections. But nobody even looks at the reasoning of the phrase.

Groupthink loyalty, indoctrinated from infancy, can overcome the natural reason in each human.

 

That's one way of putting it.

Sure, what would Einstein know about what makes science work that you don't, right?

 

Serious question: have you actually read this thread?

 

Do you think it was Judaism?
Now put on your critical thinking cap. If he had said science without ethics is lame, it would have made more sense, but he used religion. Religion implies an element of the supernatural which is outside the purview of science. But then again his little aphorism wouldn't have that flow.

"Groupthink loyalty, indoctrinated from infancy, can overcome the natural reason in each human."...is an excellent description of the religious.

 

Einstein also wrote in a letter to Jewish philosopher Eric Gutkind:

“The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.”


As for science, it's not that hard to understand the single primary foundation of science - that we may meaningfully observe the universe.

 

Absolutely. And since it was my unattributed quote, it applies very clearly to the groupthink loyalists in the progressive religion. Posters here illustrate that irrational loyalty constantly.

Reason, facts, and common sense are ignored and ridiculed, for the indoctrinated beliefs.

In all humanity, do you think only 'Christians!' are religious? Or have 'beliefs!'? Or can be indoctrinated/irrational?

 

Unfortunately, yes.

..and i feel brain cells dying, and reason slipping away...

I hope the madness and folly of irrational progressives isn't contagious!

 

You posed some logic that just failed and a number of people pointed that out.

That's not the end of the world.

 

As with "ad hominem" it looks like you don't understand the meaning of the word "progressive" and just use it as a catch all for anyone who doesn't accept your statements of faith without evidence. If you read your thread, your question has already been addressed many times over.