What does atheist Matt Dillahunty mean when he accuses theists of “the fallacy of the argument from personal incredulity”?

Atheist rhetoric is a mish mash of ignorance, denial and pretense, often mingled with explicit or implicit efforts at censorship. Atheists travel in herds—contrary to their own inflated sense of their ‘freethought’ and ‘skepticism’, they are the most gullible idealogues. In debate with atheists, specific themes show up again and again, and atheist accusation of ‘the fallacy of the argument from personal incredulity’ is among the most common, usually aimed at Christians who challenge atheist arguments.

Matt Dillahunty invoked ‘the fallacy of the argument from personal incredulity’ in our recent debate.

It’s worthwhile examining what this ‘fallacy’ is and why atheists invoke it. This is a common definition:

Argument from Incredulity (also known as: argument from personal astonishment, argument from personal incredulity, personal incredulity)

Description: Concluding that because you can’t or refuse to believe something, it must not be true, improbable, or the argument must be flawed. This is a specific form of the argument from ignorance.

Logical Form:

Person 1 makes a claim.

Person 2 cannot believe the claim.

Person 2 concludes, without any reason besides he or she cannot believe or refuses to believe it, that the claim is false or improbable. – “Argument From Personal Incredulity” Logically Fallacious

If you are a bit perplexed by this “fallacy,” you’re on the right track. It’s nonsense, as we will see.

All beliefs are based on reasons of some sort, and all statements of belief are propositions — assertions that can be true or false. That is, statements of belief are opinions.

To “argue from personal incredulity” means to state an opinion — i.e. to say “I don’t believe X.”

Opinions are inferences. Inferences connect evidence from experience to the best explanation, using some kind of formal reasoning. Both the evidence and the reasoning on which an opinion is based may be strong or weak. Some opinions are more reasonable than others.

Yet all opinions are based, in one way or another, on experience and reason. The experience may be careful systematic scientific experimentation or a lifetime of observation and reflection — or a mostly emotional reaction to a situation. The reasoning behind an opinion may be meticulous formal logic or slipshod hunches — or overtly fallacious logic.

It’s noteworthy that many good opinions are based on fallacies. For example, a common basis for opinion is abduction, which is a kind of inferential reasoning based on affirmation of the consequent, which is a fallacy.

Affirmation of the consequent takes the form:

If A, then B.

B.

Therefore, A.

This is of course fallacious logic, yet many of our most reasonable and defensible opinions take this form. For example, consider:

If it’s raining, people on the street are wet.

People on the street are wet.

Therefore, it’s raining.

Although this is a deductive fallacy, it is usually true that when you see a lot of people on the street who are wet, that is because it’s raining. Possibly, of course, they are wet because they just ran under sprinklers, someone sprayed them with a hose, or they were all splashed by a huge truck passing through a puddle. But the inference to rain is reasonable, even though the logic is fallacious.

Most of our opinions are based on incomplete evidence evaluated by more or less dubious logic. Such is the human condition, and this is true of atheists as well as theists. But such opinions can still be true, and in fact, often are true. Most of the time, when people on the street are wet, that’s because it is raining.

We don’t live our lives systematically collecting reams of evidence and analyzing it by meticulous logic to make every decision. We have to decide on the run, with fleeting evidence and fuzzy logic, and yet we often get it right. If we waited for a well-controlled scientific study analyzed via formal logic to figure out if wet people on the street meant rain, we wouldn’t get much done.

So the atheist assertion that a theist is committing the “fallacy of argument from personal incredulity” just means that the theist is expressing an opinion. And an opinion itself cannot be a fallacy. Opinions can be right or wrong, well supported or poorly supported by evidence, and carefully or sloppily reasoned. Only logical assertions can be fallacies, and while an opinion contains logic (which is often technically fallacious), opinions cannot in themselves be fallacious. And many opinions based on scanty evidence and faulty logic are still quite good and true opinions.

So what do atheists like Dillahunty mean when they accuse theists of “the fallacy of the argument from incredulity”? They mean that the theist has expressed an opinion with which the atheist disagrees. There is no “fallacy.” There are just different opinions, each one likely based on limited evidence and sketchy logic. Welcome to human life.

People express opinions — atheists as well as theists, and debates should turn on the quality of the evidence and logic, not on allegations of nonsensical “fallacies.” It is noteworthy that the “fallacy of argument from personal incredulity” is only invoked to discredit theist opinions. Atheists exempt their own opinions — their own “arguments from personal incredulity” — from the nonsensical label they apply to others. The denial of God’s existence is as good an “argument from personal incredulity” as any, but theists usually want to discuss evidence and logic, not invoke fictitious “fallacies” to shut down discussion.

So why do atheists like Dillahunty invoke this fictitious fallacy? The allegation of “the fallacy of argument from personal incredulity” is a tactic to suppress opposing opinions. It relieves the atheists of the burden of proving their case, which they are desperate to avoid. What atheists are really saying when they accuse theists of the ‘fallacy of argument from personal incredulity’ is that theists’ opinions are invalid by fiat and need no rebuttal. That is convenient for atheists who have no credible arguments of their own and no meaningful rebuttals to offer.

In short, the “fallacy of argument from personal incredulity” is just the atheists’ way of saying “shut up and don’t ask any more questions.” The way to counter it is to call it out for the nonsense that it is, and to keep asking questions. What atheists fear most is having to explain themselves, and the invocation of fictitious “fallacies” is one of their favorite ways to evade scrutiny.

All you've shown me is an extended ration of atheistic bullshit loaded with fallacies.

Atheist Claims About Logical Fallacies Often Just Mean: Shut Up!
In the recent debate, Matt Dillahunty accuses theists of “the fallacy of the argument from personal incredulity” because we examine his claims and find them incredible

What does atheist Matt Dillahunty mean when he accuses theists of “the fallacy of the argument from personal incredulity”?

Atheist rhetoric is a mish mash of ignorance, denial and pretense, often mingled with explicit or implicit efforts at censorship. Atheists travel in herds—contrary to their own inflated sense of their ‘freethought’ and ‘skepticism’, they are the most gullible idealogues. In debate with atheists, specific themes show up again and again, and atheist accusation of ‘the fallacy of the argument from personal incredulity’ is among the most common, usually aimed at Christians who challenge atheist arguments.

Matt Dillahunty invoked ‘the fallacy of the argument from personal incredulity’ in our recent debate.

It’s worthwhile examining what this ‘fallacy’ is and why atheists invoke it. This is a common definition:

Argument from Incredulity (also known as: argument from personal astonishment, argument from personal incredulity, personal incredulity)

Description: Concluding that because you can’t or refuse to believe something, it must not be true, improbable, or the argument must be flawed. This is a specific form of the argument from ignorance.

Logical Form:

Person 1 makes a claim.

Person 2 cannot believe the claim.

Person 2 concludes, without any reason besides he or she cannot believe or refuses to believe it, that the claim is false or improbable. – “Argument From Personal Incredulity” Logically Fallacious

If you are a bit perplexed by this “fallacy,” you’re on the right track. It’s nonsense, as we will see.

All beliefs are based on reasons of some sort, and all statements of belief are propositions — assertions that can be true or false. That is, statements of belief are opinions.

To “argue from personal incredulity” means to state an opinion — i.e. to say “I don’t believe X.”

Opinions are inferences. Inferences connect evidence from experience to the best explanation, using some kind of formal reasoning. Both the evidence and the reasoning on which an opinion is based may be strong or weak. Some opinions are more reasonable than others.

Yet all opinions are based, in one way or another, on experience and reason. The experience may be careful systematic scientific experimentation or a lifetime of observation and reflection — or a mostly emotional reaction to a situation. The reasoning behind an opinion may be meticulous formal logic or slipshod hunches — or overtly fallacious logic.

It’s noteworthy that many good opinions are based on fallacies. For example, a common basis for opinion is abduction, which is a kind of inferential reasoning based on affirmation of the consequent, which is a fallacy.

Affirmation of the consequent takes the form:

If A, then B.

B.

Therefore, A.

This is of course fallacious logic, yet many of our most reasonable and defensible opinions take this form. For example, consider:

If it’s raining, people on the street are wet.

People on the street are wet.

Therefore, it’s raining.

Although this is a deductive fallacy, it is usually true that when you see a lot of people on the street who are wet, that is because it’s raining. Possibly, of course, they are wet because they just ran under sprinklers, someone sprayed them with a hose, or they were all splashed by a huge truck passing through a puddle. But the inference to rain is reasonable, even though the logic is fallacious.

Most of our opinions are based on incomplete evidence evaluated by more or less dubious logic. Such is the human condition, and this is true of atheists as well as theists. But such opinions can still be true, and in fact, often are true. Most of the time, when people on the street are wet, that’s because it is raining.

We don’t live our lives systematically collecting reams of evidence and analyzing it by meticulous logic to make every decision. We have to decide on the run, with fleeting evidence and fuzzy logic, and yet we often get it right. If we waited for a well-controlled scientific study analyzed via formal logic to figure out if wet people on the street meant rain, we wouldn’t get much done.

So the atheist assertion that a theist is committing the “fallacy of argument from personal incredulity” just means that the theist is expressing an opinion. And an opinion itself cannot be a fallacy. Opinions can be right or wrong, well supported or poorly supported by evidence, and carefully or sloppily reasoned. Only logical assertions can be fallacies, and while an opinion contains logic (which is often technically fallacious), opinions cannot in themselves be fallacious. And many opinions based on scanty evidence and faulty logic are still quite good and true opinions.

So what do atheists like Dillahunty mean when they accuse theists of “the fallacy of the argument from incredulity”? They mean that the theist has expressed an opinion with which the atheist disagrees. There is no “fallacy.” There are just different opinions, each one likely based on limited evidence and sketchy logic. Welcome to human life.

People express opinions — atheists as well as theists, and debates should turn on the quality of the evidence and logic, not on allegations of nonsensical “fallacies.” It is noteworthy that the “fallacy of argument from personal incredulity” is only invoked to discredit theist opinions. Atheists exempt their own opinions — their own “arguments from personal incredulity” — from the nonsensical label they apply to others. The denial of God’s existence is as good an “argument from personal incredulity” as any, but theists usually want to discuss evidence and logic, not invoke fictitious “fallacies” to shut down discussion.

So why do atheists like Dillahunty invoke this fictitious fallacy? The allegation of “the fallacy of argument from personal incredulity” is a tactic to suppress opposing opinions. It relieves the atheists of the burden of proving their case, which they are desperate to avoid. What atheists are really saying when they accuse theists of the ‘fallacy of argument from personal incredulity’ is that theists’ opinions are invalid by fiat and need no rebuttal. That is convenient for atheists who have no credible arguments of their own and no meaningful rebuttals to offer.

In short, the “fallacy of argument from personal incredulity” is just the atheists’ way of saying “shut up and don’t ask any more questions.” The way to counter it is to call it out for the nonsense that it is, and to keep asking questions. What atheists fear most is having to explain themselves, and the invocation of fictitious “fallacies” is one of their favorite ways to evade scrutiny.

Now, explain why belief in a supernatural being is irrational.

An argument from ignorance is an assertion that a claim is either true or false because of a lack of evidence to the contrary. The speaker assumes that their position is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or that their opponent's position is false because it has not been or cannot be proven true.

Do you have some sort of plan on how you are gonna prove your assertion that God does not exist?
If so, now would be a good time to show us your evidence.

The fundamental question in the atheist vs theist argument is what exactly constitutes evidence.
Put simply, if the assertion is that a supernatural being is non-existent, then no evidence of it exists,
if such a being does exist, then evidence of it exists. Somewhere.
The question is where would we find such evidence and what form would it take?
I reckon we would do what any good detective would, go where the evidence exists,
and to do that requires desire, dedication, conviction and commitment to seek the truth.

So, Peter, where do you go for evidence to prove a supernatural being does not exist?
Where do we go for evidence to prove a supernatural being exists.

No law can exist without a law giver,
no creation without a creator.