Are atheists embarrassed that all they have to back up their position is logical fallacies?

God is a fictional character found in the mythology of the ancient Middle East.

People in the modern world use this mythology as a socially-acceptable excuse for adults to believe in magic.

The simple and obvious fact is that, in reality, there is no such thing as magic.

You apparently don't understand what "logical fallacies" are, which I suppose isn't surprising from someone who believes in magic and can't tell the difference between fact and fiction.

Bob N said:

"You sir, are stating an opinion. There is no argument present at al in your question. You see, maybe you didn't know this, but an argument needs proof. That is, a claim needs to be supported by fact, or supported by other claims that are derived from fact."

That is true. If a Christian says there is a God he needs to provide proof to be believed.

But if an antitheist says, "You are wrong, there is no God." Then the antitheist must provide proof.

Each side must prove their own claim if it becomes an argument. Not just the person stating the first claim.

So, where besides these logical fallacies is there any proof there is no God? Logic is not proof. It's only a way of thinking. It's not proof in and by itself.

This is also why eclipse-girl is wrong.

You sir, are stating an opinion. There is no argument present at al in your question. You see, maybe you didn't know this, but an argument needs proof. That is, a claim needs to be supported by fact, or supported by other claims that are derived from fact.

You don't have to be an intellectual to distinguish between the existent and non-existent. Maybe some simple logical principles can set you straight.

1. Consciousness cannot exist without matter. Consciousness is an effect of matter, you can have matter without consciousness but not the other way around. Disagree? Try saying that no women can bear your company, but you have a girlfriend. You see? This creates an insurmountable paradox. Having a girlfriend is an effect of women bearing your company.

2. Omniscience cannot coexist with omnipotence. If a god knows what will happen tomorrow, said god cannot change what will happen without invalidating his foreknowledge.

Maybe you can learn from this because you're attempting to make an argument but it lacks the burden of proof so it is a mere opinion. But not all is wrong for you, some say ignorance is bliss.

The Bible says to "honor men of all sorts." I would never call an atheist stupid. As a Jehovah's Witness, I believe that all humans have an inherent dignity. I believe that if we have solid beliefs, we should try to win them over. They are rightfully disillusioned with some of the things that have been done in the name of religion and have hard questions about the Bible they need answered. They may not always be tactful but I try to look past that and to kill them with kindness. I will be happy to answer the hard questions they have about the Old Testament and I will show them that doctrines like Hellfire aren't scriptural.

"Logical fallacies"? I think you misspelled "straw men".

Whenever I see a theist say "You know how atheists say this, well it's wrong because ...", the argument quoted is simply made up or based on an actual argument, but missing some detail.

I'm also hold a mathematics degree, and as such I am actually remarkably good at spotting fallacies. Atheists here aren't perfect, but a lot of what they say is very much valid.

Call me whatever you like. I didn't go to college. This place was the first time I'd ever heard that there was a pre-printed list to pick from of logical fallacies.

I'm more of a common sort. I call bullsheet when I see it. I don't go in for fancy shmancy words & phrases.

All I have to back up my positions is 41 years walking this rock, a good 35 of those probably, looking for god...or a god....or goddess even...nothing, nada, zippo. I am convinced I'd have better luck finding the tooth faerie.

So, lower yourself to flinging poo & unkind words, but it ain't gonna change a thing.

Well, while we're all here, it wouldn't hurt to name them and describe the situations in which they are used.

By the way, you are committing a Complex Question fallacy by asking a question that I can't answer without agreeing with your premise, which I don't.

That would be like me asking you if you still beat your dog. It doesn't matter if you say yes or no, you would still be admitting you beat your dog. The ONLY way to answer is to deny the false claim: "Hey, I don't beat my dog, and you should be ashamed for implying it."

Hey, I don't back my claims with logical fallacies, and you should be ashamed for implying it.

You do realise that you committed (at least) the logical fallacies of; Appeal to popular belief, Appeal to ignorance, Appeal to spite, Anecdotal evidence, Hasty generalisation, Sweeping generalisations, Begging the questions, Biased generalisation, Confirmation bias.... I honestly could continue for some time.

Nice... if we ask you to name the fallacies it means we are stupid... clever.

Ok... I'll bite. Tell me what these fallacies are... You can call me stupid, but not half as stupid as you if you cannot back up your claim. And, if you evade or refuse to respond, you make my case for me.

To the absurd, intelligence is a logical fallacy.