Two are cartoon characters of which anyone not living under a rock would know.
The other two are folk legends for children. Again something about which most adults with a functioning cerebral cortex would be aware.
If you want to get to specifics: I don’t believe in god(s) , the soul, an afterlife, heaven, miracles, hell, angels , demons the para normal, psychics, fortune tellers of all kinds, dragons, mountain trolls, fairies at the bottom of my garden, nor the tooth fairy or boogeyman. All for the same reason: A lack of empirical evidence.
I don’t really understand the point of your question.
NO. IT IS NOT A FALLACY AND IT IS NOT SPECIAL PLEADING. YOU HAVE COMPLETELY MISSED THE MAIN IDEA.
You do not understand the argument. You do not understand special pleading.
“God is the Cause of the universe and he is eternal.” There is nothing at all in this statement that is “Special Pleading.” I do not need to prove God is Eternal… this completely misses the point of the assertion.
I have asserted there is a god.
I have asserted that this god created the universe.
Whether or not the god is eternal is completely irrelevant to the argument. Focusing on this misses the entire point.
YOU DON’T HAVE A CLUE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. JUST STOP!
Look: A special pleading argument would look something like this…
Everything that began to exist had a cause.
The universe began to exist.
The universe had a cause.
Now we do a whole bunch of smoke and mirror bullshit to assert the qualities of that cause. It must be outside the universe for the universe could not cause itself… bla bla bla… There is more fallacious shit in this bullshit than there is in the main argument. The result of this bullshit is that…
God is the uncreated creator of the universe.
There is ONLY a fallacy when the conclusion opposes a premise. Everything that began to exist has a cause. God exists but did not begin to exist. Yet everything we know of, including the universe began to exist. (THIS IS SPECIAL PLEADING) God is the only thing we know of that did not begin to exist. He is special.
You don’t get to assert fallacies in arguments when you have not specified the fallacy in the argument. You are just talking out your ass.
There is no fallacy in “God created the universe.” It is an unsubstantiated assertion. You don’t get to call it fallacious and apply causality to it when causality has not been mentioned. You are arguing about apples and the assertion was about oranges.
Stop trying to demonstrate shit. You do not have the ability to do so. Your thoughts are random and disjointed. You are making inane assertions that make no sense. You are starting ideas in the middle without understanding them. You still have no idea at all WHY Russell made the comment he did. You do not understand the causality argument. JUST STOP Your assertions are fucking stupid…
The burden of proof being with those making a claim is a basic general principle in logic.
The person saying “I believe in god” or “there is a god” has the burden of proof. It is not up to others to disprove a claim (Look up ‘Russell’s Teapot’)
An atheists who states only “I do not believe” has made no claim. Consequently that person has no burden of proof. This is something the smarter apologists pretend not to understand. (imo)
Asa for your examples, I simply say “I don’t believe”, but make no claim. IF I say “these things do not exist” I have a burden of proof. Simply arguing a thing is untrue because it is ridiculous is a basic logical fallacy. IE argument from personal incredulity:
" Argument from incredulity, also known as argument from personal incredulity or appeal to common sense,[1] is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one’s personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine.
Arguments from incredulity can take the form:
I cannot imagine how F could be true; therefore F must be false.
I cannot imagine how F could be false; therefore F must be true.[2]
Arguments from incredulity can sometimes arise from inappropriate emotional involvement, the conflation of fantasy and reality, a lack of understanding, or an instinctive ‘gut’ reaction, especially where time is scarce.[3] This form of reasoning is fallacious because one’s inability to imagine how a statement can be true or false gives no information about whether the statement is true or false in reality.[4] "
I am not asserting that something can or can not come from nothing. My position is that we understand the history of our universe back to the instant just before the big bang. And then the laws of physics break down and we do not know what happened before that. Before the big bang … WE DO NOT KNOW
Religion asserts they have the answers, with absolutely nothing to support that position but religious dogma and some questionable writings from some nomadic herders from over two thousand years ago. Religion has many things from the bible that are obviously in contradiction of physics. If they are wrong on some things, how can we be sure it has the answers on the beginning of this universe?
Which of those two positions is the more honest one?
I cannot imagine God because all its features has been explained in a most proper manner by science.
So God it’s just an empty word inherited from the past.
That claim is incorrect. Science does not deal in absolute claims, nor has science ever claimed to prove or disprove the existence of god(s)
Your position is still based on the logical fallacy of argument from personal incredulity.
That’s a positive claim (hard atheism) and attracts the burden of proof.
Most Atheists I run across are soft atheists, stating only “I do not believe”
There is a very simple reason for this position. So far in recorded history, all claims about god(s) are unfalsifiable, That means that so far no one has succeeded in either proving nor disproving the existence of god(s)
The hard atheist is in the position of having to prove an unfalsifiable claim.
I’ve explained my position and my reason for my position as best I can. I have nothing further to say to you on this topic. I am not here to teach or earn brownie points for changing a person’s mind about anything.
It is a common tactic to try to define atheism out of existence. Then there will be no atheists. I’m not attached to the word (other than it being in the url, hehe); but we still won’t believe. So we’ll need a new word for the people who aren’t jacked up on god juice. Then that word will get a bad reputation, and someone like you will suggest we get rid of it too. Rinse, repeat.
HOW MANY MORE IDIOTIC THINGS ARE YOU GOING TO SAY. If you deny the existence of a god… YOU HAVE A FUCKING BRUDEN OF PROOF. Are you stupid. If you say “I deny the existence of God.” You have a burden of proof.
DENIAL:
[countable, uncountable] a statement saying that something is not true → deny
“God exists.”
“That statement is not true.”
“Prove it.”
You have allowed the theist to shift the burden of proof. WHY IN THE FUCK DON’T YOU JUST GO AWAY AND LURK FOR A MONTH OR SO UNTIL YOU FIGURE THIS SHIT OUT. YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT IN THE FUCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.