Yes...
VitalOne's Fallacious Rants Against Atheism
- Thread starter VitalOne
- Start date
Yes...
And "inability to believe" is one of the definitions of disbelief yes?
As per dictionary.com:
dis·be·lief /ˌdɪsbɪˈlif/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[dis-bi-leef] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.
Wow ten pages and no one called VO on it. He names the thread: "VitalOne's fallacious rants against atheism"
From the opening post and the title of the thread, he admits all his arguments are fallacious! So why humor him? he's already admitted defeat! He admits his arguments are fallacious! LOL...
From the opening post and the title of the thread, he admits all his arguments are fallacious! So why humor him? he's already admitted defeat! He admits his arguments are fallacious! LOL...
That wasn't the original title. A mod renamed it recently after merging this thread with some of Vital's other threads.
What an idiot...the moderator renamed this thread
Vital, are we going to finish this conversation?
Right...so what's your point? How many million times do I have to repeat myself?
I said the inability to believe AND disbelieve...why do you conveniently leave out the other part?
No need to get pissy. I already said we're doing this step by step, we just haven't gotten to the rest yet.
So, we first concluded that "inability to believe and disbelieve" is the same as "Inability to believe and inability to disbelieve".
You just agreed that "inability to believe" is the definition of disbelief, so we can plugin disbelief in the place of that phrase. For example, "His inability to believe in her words is perfectly rational" can also be stated as "His disbelief in her words is perfectly rational".
And when you plugin with your statement of "inability to believe and inability to disbelieve", you get "disbelief and inability to disbelieve", which is a nonsensical statement.
Now, we've walked through this step by step. Can you show me where I went wrong, or why your statement isn't nonsensical?
No, you got it wrong...
"Inability to believe and disbelieve" means "Inability to accept something as true and inability to refuse something as true"
Yeah, it's a shame I can't legimately criticize atheism without being blocked out by the moderators
Atheists enjoy ridiculing theism, but you can't ridicule atheism, then it's a horrible thing to do, then it's offensive, then it's wrong
Athiests can't handle that their entire faith-based belief system is just the same any other faith-based belief system
You've already agreed "inability to believe and disbelieve" is the same as "inability to believe and inability to disbelieve" as you can see below:
And you've also agreed that inability to believe is the same thing as disbelief, as you can see below:
So, you are still saying "disbelief and inability to disbelieve".
And you've also agreed that inability to believe is the same thing as disbelief, as you can see below:
VitalOne said:
So, you are still saying "disbelief and inability to disbelieve".
i can understand VitalOne is coming from though, most people in here a "Fallacious rants against" any religion. so right back at you, silly non believers
Right...so what don't you understand?
It comes down to the "inability to accept and refuse something being true"
What's the problem?
Look at it like algebra.
1. inability to believe and disbelieve = A + B
where A = inability to believe
and
B= inability to disbelieve
2. inability to believe = disbelief
3. A = disbelief
4. A + B = inability to believe and disbelieve = disbelief and inability to disbelieve
I don't how else to get this through to you.
1. inability to believe and disbelieve = A + B
where A = inability to believe
and
B= inability to disbelieve
2. inability to believe = disbelief
3. A = disbelief
4. A + B = inability to believe and disbelieve = disbelief and inability to disbelieve
I don't how else to get this through to you.
What's the problem????
You don't see what the problem is with "disbelief and inability to disbelieve"????
Like I said earlier, that's similar to saying "I neither own nor not own Reeboks!"
No, you're over complicating things in order to favor your own propaganda....
A = accepting something to be true
B = refusing something as true
Inability to believe and disbeleive = NOT A+ NOT B
I don't understand what's so complex about it...it simply means "inability to accept and refuse something being true"
No, there's is no problem, as for reeboks, this logic doesn't apply since it's a physical object, where as belief is not a physical object...What's the problem????
You don't see what the problem is with "disbelief and inability to disbelieve"????
Like I said earlier, that's similar to saying "I neither own nor not own Reeboks!"
It's rather "neither belief nor disbelief"
Fine, we'll use your version of it.
A = accepting something to be true
B = refusing something as true
Inability to believe and disbeleive = NOT A+ NOT B
You are aware that Not A, not accepting something as true, is the very definition of disbelief right? And that B is the very definition of disbelief, right?
So you're in essence, saying "disbelief, and not disbelief". Which is still nonsensical.
Uhm...no you have it wrong
It would be the same as saying "not belief and disbelief"
For instance, if something is "not big and not small", that doesn't mean you're saying it's "small and not small"
What do I have wrong Vital? Is it my definitions? I promise you you can look it up and see that I'm not lying about that.
Not big is not the definition of small. Not believing IS the definition of disbelieving. Your analogy is flawed.