Wow, I’m convinced!

There’s nothing like drawing a bunch of circles to convince an atheist God exists, am I right? Now before you pull your hair out watching this creepy, glass-eyed woman as she tries to convince everyone her advice on converting atheists is useful, let’s examine her little claims. It all basically boils down to one thing:

“Is it possible for God to live outside your circle of knowledge”

I don’t think there’s an atheist out there who would deny such a slim possibility exists, but we’ve never really fallen for the “God in the Gaps” argument. It tends not to fulfill a very important role: namely, to prove a point! The same argument could be used to justify anything from unicorns to fairies, so it doesn’t tend to hold much water.

Let’s play a game. I call it “spot the fallacies”. Since you guys are pretty savvy and tend to love picking at easy targets, I’ll get you warmed up with three of my own:

1) Appeal to popularity: So many people already believe in God, so it must be true!
2) Appeal to ignorance: We don’t know everything, so surely we don’t know there is no God. Therefore, there is a God!
3) Appeal to a stupid drawing: Ok, this isn’t an actual fallacy, but I did find it comical how convinced she was her little drawing proved something. It would have been quaint if she didn’t seemed so convinced from her own bullshit.

Hey lady, if your nephew was a serious atheist, he would have simply stated although we don’t know everything, all the knowledge we have gathered offers no proof of your invisible sky-daddy. That’s all there really is to it! If you walk around trying to prove that you’re Napoleon, you’ll have to provide some pretty serious evidence to back up your claim. That’s what we want as atheists, and that’s what religionists continue to fail to deliver. Show us the proof, people!

Comments (13)

  • avatar

    In Man I Trust

    Ah the classic big circle little circle argument, how could we possibly counter that
    one?

  • avatar

    Thilo

    The video gets very funny if you replace God with Orc or Unicorn :P

  • avatar

    Michael

    1) Argument from Ignorance
    2) Argument from Authority (When refferring to fools-Interestingly enough this authoritative item contains within it an ad hominem )

    Not to mention that she’s guilty of that terrible loving-grandma attempt at rhetoric. (Not a formal fallacy, however, I aim to make it one)

  • avatar

    Tercero

    @In Man I Trust

    probably trying to tell them they dont have a bigger circle just because they know superjesus exist D:… but probably not possible against ignorants :/

  • avatar

    Brandon

    @In Man I Trust

    At that point you should ask where her (small) circle of knowledge resides. You can treat it like set theory then, and refute her arguments that are in the complement set of your respective circles.

    Although it is a bit harder for theists to understand, I’ve found that “mathematical” proofs are the easiest way to end an argument.

  • avatar

    Matt

    I’d say it also comes close to an appeal to probability (if something could happen it will happen), it’s essentially saying there could be a god so there is one.

    Negative proof fallacy, because we can’t prove there isn’t a god there is a god (similar to appeal to ignorance).

    The thing that bugs me the most here is that she starts from the assumption all atheists hold the position “There can’t be a god”, that is almost never the case (some may hold that position). There could be a god. I don’t believe there is one because there is zero evidence for one. If such evidence presented itself i would reconsider my position. It’s always funny that religious people scream “Aha!” when an atheist says there could be a god, i guess because they feel we have a weak argument because it isn’t an absolute. You can’t prove a negative. You can’t prove there is no god, all you can do is say there is no evidence for such an entity and so i don’t believe one exists. Additionally science is constantly wiping away this god’s so called credentials because he (a god) is needed less and less to explain natural phenomenon.

    Also, fuck this lady, up until this moment i’ve lived my life able to say i’ve never thought about punching an old lady in the neck. I can no longer say that’s the case and this lady took that away from me.

  • avatar

    alastair

    All she did was say;
    There are things you dont know, and thats where god could be, therefore god exists
    The assumptive leap is from that “there could be” to “therefore there is”.
    I think she also doesn’t understand the differences between atheism and agnosticism, which is pretty common.
    Also she’s assuming her position is the truth, when by her own reasoning she could convince herself that she doesnt know everything, her understanding of god doesn’t encompass everything as well. It could be that shes following the wrong god, perhaps she should look up aqua Buddha.

    I think you got the main logical fallacies there.

    The point to remember is shes infected by a mental virus and will do backflips to justify it to herself and others to help is infect others. Atheists are the anti-virus, keep up the good work Jacob and Ryan! doing awesome

  • avatar

    J.N. Hudson

    “Is it possible for God to live outside your circle of knowledge”

    Zeus, the easter bunny, unicorns, and the 24/7 orgasm all live outside my “circle of knowledge”. Should I also believe in them? Because they lack just as much evidence as your deity, or anyone elses deity for that matter.

    “Appeal to a stupid drawing: Ok, this isn’t an actual fallacy, but I did find it comical how convinced she was that her little drawing proved something.”

    It is a fallacy, it’s an appeal to authority, her own authority. Hell, you can hear the arrogance and condescention in her voice.

  • avatar

    Rebo

    Bravo to Matt!

  • avatar

    Mctaffity

    The whole thing is a total staw man too – how do I know what her nephew really said (if she’s got one at all that is)?

  • avatar

    Xtian

    I have grown quite weary of this type of “evidence”and “truth”. It always boils-down to the same garbage, some kind of rhetorical word game. This kind of word-play may go over well when you are doing bong hits in your mother’s basement with your buddies and “blowing each others minds” with goofy logic tricks, but it hardly constitutes actionable evidence.

    I watched this video expecting to find Jesus (and claim the missing-persons reward money perhaps?) but all I got was more of the same inanity that believers always seem so impressed with. She did jazz it up a bit with some drawings, but with her demeanor and vocal delivery I was afraid she was eventually going to draw a stick figure and ask me where the nice priest touched me.

  • avatar

    MichaelMM

    Wow, her jump from the knowledge we as individuals hold to there must be a god is a long one. I do not think her argument has the legs to make that jump. I also really like how she attempted to credit all of the knowledge ammased by man to god. It was also fun to see her pointing to god within man’s knowlegde like it was some sort of, Where’s Waldo of divinity. Fuck, that woman is stupid, condescending, and cocksure about her, “truth”. I want to slap her with an encyclopedia and ask her if her god was in there.

  • avatar

    Emmaline

    WOW…
    Being a Christian, I feel like an intruder here, but that was FUNNY!!! She seems to think that Atheists are mentally retarded and that all Christians are naive and retarded enough to have just as low of an opinion of Atheists as she does. A human being is a human being, no matter their religious beliefs.
    I DARE that grandma to listen to any of your comments and be converted to Atheism that easily. She’s the kind of person who only sees one side to a story.

Leave a Comment

Scroll to top