VitalOne's Fallacious Rants Against Atheism

[greenberg]

I'm away for a few hours, and look what happened ...

This doesn't follow my earlier logic because like I said, I'm not trying to infer any reasons. Here, you're inferring a reason behind your ownership, or lack of ownership. All I'm saying is, 1. You own Reeboks or 2. You don't own Reeboks. That's all. I'm viewing belief in the same way.

I'm not looking for the reason why you don't believe. It doesn't matter to me why you choose not to believe.

The thing is that in religions, it usually DOES MATTER how come a person believes or doesn't believe.

That's why I said that trying to make the issue of belief an objective cognitive matter is inadequate.

For example, in Christianity, if a person says they believe in God because they don't want to go to hell, this is not enough; in fact, according to some Christians, it is precisely such belief in God that will land a person straight in hell.

Awareness of a concept does not automatically lead to or require accepting it or rejecting it.

My mistake might have been using the word rejection. It's a little too active.

Of course it's "too active", and "non-acceptance" doesn't mend the problem either.

Note that several stances might be at work here underneath, such as:
"If a person has something, it is because they want to have it."
"If a person doesn't have something, it is because they chose not to have it."
"Whatever the state of affairs, it is a result of conscious, deliberate actions."
These are sometimes adequate, but other times they are not.

So, in your particular case, all the "alternatives" (reject, ignore, synthesize, suspend, redefine) are all different degrees of not accepting. Are we getting closer to being on the same wavelength?

I'll put it this way: From a particular perspective, there are two externally observable results: accept and not accept. But there are six different intentions possible to lead to those results:
The intention to accept leads to acceptance.
The other six intentions lead to non-acceptance (or rejection, if you will).


The crux is that religions and philosophies often refuse to accept the person's own account of what their intentions are, but instead some religions and philosophies impose on the person their own understanding of what intention lead to a particular result.

So a religion might claim, "If you don't believe in God, this is because you are deliberately refusing to believe in God, despite the fact that you know the Truth".

Once you pinpoint it, I'll be happy to talk about it. But as it stands, that analogy seems to describes Vital's views just fine.

I gave up on trying to understand Vital's position.

 

[phlogistician]

Vitalone, page 8, post #154, reply, or resign the argument.

 

[Godless]

I gave up a while ago when it comes to trying to get VitalOne to... think for himself.

Well it comes from knowing a disease, and or denying a disease. An alcoholic will never admit he/she's an alcoholic, seldom they've come to the realization they are an alcoholic, to the same point a brained washed theist will never admit they are incoherent, irrational, or gay! They deny their wrong, they think they are right, and tries to fight in anyway to admit that EVERY one else who doesn't agree with their world view of god, is plainly wrong! Thus this mentality spurs world conflicts between individuals and unfortunately between government leaders. Imagine if this dood was some sort of politician, how safe would you feel?

 

[Varda]

Right, so you say I'm being dishonest yet you yourself know there is absolutely no empiricial evidence supporting ambiogenesis....so who's REALLY being dishonest?

it's really you, because post after post you disregard everything I said about the scientific method.
I'm pretty sure everyone here is aware that the scientific method is not perfect, but it is the best thing we have, and if you don't like it, feel free to go back to medieval age.

I'm sure you and other atheists have no problem believing abiogeneisis, all of a sudden evidence is irrelevant

I am not an atheist. I don't have to believe in abiogenesis or in anything else. I follow up on research.

Right....you agree, any evidence of design is automatically a "god of the gaps"

Thanks again for re-confirming a supposed strawman

I'm sorry, but you shouldn't be using the very same fallacies you are criticising, should you? I thought you said that lack for evidence for one thing doesn't automatically count as evidence for something else. I mean, do you actually consider the insuficient evidence for abiogenesis to be an evidence in favour of design? Can you say that to my face?
Or do you actually have any serious evidence at all of design?

This is getting very tiring... I'm ready to give up on you, vital

 

[VitalOne]

But we've already established that if someone doesn't hold belief, they're in a state of disbelief, as that's the very definition of disbelief.

I don't know if I can do this anymore Vital. I don't know how I'm supposed to teach you English 101 over a forum.

No, that was never established...why do I keep having to repeat myself a million times?

Listen, there's:
belief
disbelief
neither belief nor disbelief

Why do you see things only in a way to promote the atheistic propaganda?

 

[VitalOne]

I gave up a while ago when it comes to trying to get VitalOne to... think for himself.

I'm the only one here that thinks for myself...you guys are upset because no other theist has been able to logically beat you up

 

[VitalOne]

Vitalone, page 8, post #154, reply, or resign the argument.

I already responded to that, post #180, maybe you should resign

 

[VitalOne]

Heres the problem... or atleast one of them. Many religious fanatics see things in black and white... you either believe in god or you don't. Thus, an argument can never be won against someone who does not think outside of those terms.

Right, ashura see's things in black and white, ashura says there's only belief and disbelief, in you possess pure uncertainty (neither refusal nor acceptance) then it's some how disbelief, even though it's not refusal

 

[ashura]

Right, ashura see's things in black and white, ashura says there's only belief and disbelief, in you possess pure uncertainty (neither refusal nor acceptance) then it's some how disbelief, even though t's not refusal

It's still disbelief because refusal isn't the only kind of disbelief. Inability to believe, which is NOT refusal, is also disbelief.

 

[VitalOne]

It's still disbelief because refusal isn't the only kind of disbelief. Inability to believe, which is NOT refusal, is also disbelief.

What? It's not refusal because you're not refusing to believe....

Come on ashura just admit it

 

[ashura]

What? It's not refusal because you're not refusing to believe....

Come on ashura just admit it

If you're not refusing to believe, but you're still unable to believe, it's still disbelief.

disbelief can be either

refusal to believe
OR
inability to believe

 

[VitalOne]

If you're not refusing to believe, but you're still unable to believe, it's still disbelief.

disbelief can be either

refusal to believe
OR
inability to believe

Yes you can...what's wrong with you?

In your world there is either "YES" OR "NO"..."maybe" does not exist

 

[ashura]

Yes you can...what's wrong with you?

In your world there is either "YES" OR "NO"..."maybe" does not exist

Yes you can what?

 

[VitalOne]

Yes you can what?

Sorry I read that wrong

I meant to say you can have neither belief and disbelief...

 

[ashura]

Sorry I read that wrong

I meant to say you can have neither belief and disbelief...

Still doesn't address your denial of this:

If you're not refusing to believe, but you're still unable to believe, it's still disbelief.

disbelief can be either

refusal to believe
OR
inability to believe

 

[VitalOne]

Still doesn't address your denial of this:

If you're not refusing to believe, but you're still unable to believe, it's still disbelief.

disbelief can be either

refusal to believe
OR
inability to believe

No, you're not simply unable to believe, you're neither refusing nor accepting

There it's been addressed

 

[ashura]

No, you're not simply unable to believe, you're neither refusing nor accepting

There it's been addressed

You're confusing the issue. These last few posts haven't been towards your nonsensical example of "neither believe nor disbelieve" but to this comment of yours:

Right, ashura see's things in black and white, ashura says there's only belief and disbelief, in you possess pure uncertainty (neither refusal nor acceptance) then it's some how disbelief, even though t's not refusal

I'm trying to get it through your head that refusal isn't the only form of disbelief.

 

[VitalOne]

You're confusing the issue. These last few posts haven't been towards your nonsensical example of "neither believe nor disbelieve" but to this comment of yours:



I'm trying to get it through your head that refusal isn't the only form of disbelief.

No, refusal isn't the only form of disbelief according to you because it contradicts your atheistic propaganda...to you and other "weak atheists" anything besides belief in God is atheism

I've said this over and over again, the reason it's not disbelief is because you're not refusing to believe

 

[ashura]

No, refusal isn't the only form of disbelief according to you because it contradicts your atheistic propaganda...to you and other "weak atheists" anything besides belief in God is atheism

I've said this over and over again, the reason it's not disbelief is because you're not refusing to believe

According to ME?? Because it contradicts my atheistic propaganda? And not because it's the very definition of the word???

After that comment Vital, it's apparent that we're not even speaking the same language anymore. I give up.

I'll end our lengthy conversation with something we can hopefully both agree on: Ron Paul '08.

 

[Varda]

nothing to say, vital?