VitalOne's Fallacious Rants Against Atheism

[VitalOne]

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.

When did I do that?

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

Ok

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

Right, so basically your entire post addressed no arguments at all...I never said a lack of evidence for abiogenesis was evidence of design, I said atheists don't care if there's no evidence for it , design is ofcourse a viable explanation though

Nice try though, amateur

 

[shaman_]

Varda has a point though VitalOne. It is something I have mentioned to you before. You don't believe abiogenesis and think it is a failed theory due to what you see as a lack of evidence. Isn't this what you criticise atheists for? This is why they don't believe in gods. You think evidence makes something true right? You call the following argument from ignorance -

""Lack of evidence that God exists indicates that the existence of God is unlikely""
"Only what the current evidence at the present time indicates is the truth"
"There's no evidence God exists, so God doesn't exist"
"You can't prove God exists, so God cannot exist"

Replace god with abiogenesis ....

This has been an entertaining thread. A little like an Abbot and Costello routine. Ashura has shown a lot of patience.

Not only are you disagreeing with atheists VitalOne, you seem to have disagreement with the english language.

 

[VitalOne]

Varda has a point though VitalOne. It is something I have mentioned to you before. You don't believe abiogenesis and think it is a failed theory due to what you see as a lack of evidence. Isn't this what you criticise atheists for? This is why they don't believe in gods. You think evidence makes something true right? You call the following argument from ignorance -

""Lack of evidence that God exists indicates that the existence of God is unlikely""
"Only what the current evidence at the present time indicates is the truth"
"There's no evidence God exists, so God doesn't exist"
"You can't prove God exists, so God cannot exist"

Replace god with abiogenesis ....

This has been an entertaining thread. A little like an Abbot and Costello routine. Ashura has shown a lot of patience.

Not only are you disagreeing with atheists VitalOne, you seem to have disagreement with the english language.

Uhm...did you actually read my posts? I was criticizing atheists for being hypocritical when it comes to abiogenesis, they say it doesn't matter if there's no evidence then, they call for the argument of ignorance, etc....but when it comes to God they all of a sudden say they NEED evidence

I never said abiogenesis is false because of a lack of evidence...

 

[Thoreau]

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

My friend, no theist (including you) have been able to provide any form of significant evidence in order to win an argument against me, or anyone else for that matter. Your points are loaded and based in only what you percieve as truth. And you don't think for yourself, that much is very apparent. I've read alot of what you've said since I've been a member here on SF, and NOTHING you have said in relation to a theological discussion has been based in anything other than your own religion. Your pious attitude restricts you from accepting anything that may go against the grain of what you have acquired as truth from your holy scriptures.

And perhaps that is the greatest difference that seperates you and I. When someone challenges your way of thinking, you automatically judge and tag it as "false beliefs" and seek their prosecution in order to fulfill your own faith with total disregard of anything otherwise. However, when someone presents logical evidence of anything that I do not hold familiararity with, I concider thier evidence, look at all sides and accept it if the facts provided outweighs the facts that I already know. For example, lets just say I believed that the world was flat and someone told me that the world was indeed NOT flat. I would ask for firm evidence to support thier claim. If the evidence supporting thier claim has more significance and is more logical than my beliefs of the world being flat, then yes I would accept it as truth and accept that the world was infact round.

And there is the key word, ACCEPTANCE. Acceptance is something that seems nearly implausible by you. Instead of accepting the facts presented to you, you automatically discard them because its not something you feel comfortable with. And theres another key word. COMFORTABLE. Its human nature to stick with what we see as familiar and comfortable. We as humans are naturally resistant to change. More often than not, we will go to extreme lengths in order to avoid change, whether that change is physical, mental, or spiritual. But it takes a strong person to accept change when it comes. It takes a strong person in order to release thier old ways and accept new ones. Its called evolution. And unfortunately, not all people evolve. Some, like yourself, refuse change and will hold thier ground until the sun burns out. And thats fine... just don't expect many others to be there by your side in the end.

You keep believing, I'll keep evolving.

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's beliefs are of no concern to me and have no relevance in what I am trying to say to you. However, now that we are on the subject, I shall tell you once again which I have told you so many times before.

"Just because one does not believe in a god, that does not mean that they do not believe in the possibility of a god."



I accept you for what you believe, can you accept me for what I believe? I am not here to change your mind, but only to express my disgust with your oppression of others.

 

[shaman_]

VitalOne. I thought you had referred to abiogenesis as a failed theory because we have not been able to demonstrate it.

 

[ashura]

Sorry I forgot to reply to your post greenberg:

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.

Again, even with your example, that person still believes in (a) God doesn't he/she? It's not the belief that's in question.

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.

And again, all we'd be looking at is if a person has something, or if they don't have something. That's all.

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).

So... I still don't get where you and I would disagree. Those two observable results are all that matter in this instance, because they tell you whether someone has belief or not.

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".

And even in your last sentence, no matter what the religion claims, the person still doesn't believe in God right?

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

Ditto.

 

[VitalOne]

My friend, no theist (including you) have been able to provide any form of significant evidence in order to win an argument against me, or anyone else for that matter. Your points are loaded and based in only what you percieve as truth. And you don't think for yourself, that much is very apparent. I've read alot of what you've said since I've been a member here on SF, and NOTHING you have said in relation to a theological discussion has been based in anything other than your own religion. Your pious attitude restricts you from accepting anything that may go against the grain of what you have acquired as truth from your holy scriptures.

And perhaps that is the greatest difference that seperates you and I. When someone challenges your way of thinking, you automatically judge and tag it as "false beliefs" and seek their prosecution in order to fulfill your own faith with total disregard of anything otherwise. However, when someone presents logical evidence of anything that I do not hold familiararity with, I concider thier evidence, look at all sides and accept it if the facts provided outweighs the facts that I already know. For example, lets just say I believed that the world was flat and someone told me that the world was indeed NOT flat. I would ask for firm evidence to support thier claim. If the evidence supporting thier claim has more significance and is more logical than my beliefs of the world being flat, then yes I would accept it as truth and accept that the world was infact round.

And there is the key word, ACCEPTANCE. Acceptance is something that seems nearly implausible by you. Instead of accepting the facts presented to you, you automatically discard them because its not something you feel comfortable with. And theres another key word. COMFORTABLE. Its human nature to stick with what we see as familiar and comfortable. We as humans are naturally resistant to change. More often than not, we will go to extreme lengths in order to avoid change, whether that change is physical, mental, or spiritual. But it takes a strong person to accept change when it comes. It takes a strong person in order to release thier old ways and accept new ones. Its called evolution. And unfortunately, not all people evolve. Some, like yourself, refuse change and will hold thier ground until the sun burns out. And thats fine... just don't expect many others to be there by your side in the end.

You keep believing, I'll keep evolving.



Ashura's beliefs are of no concern to me and have no relevance in what I am trying to say to you. However, now that we are on the subject, I shall tell you once again which I have told you so many times before.

"Just because one does not believe in a god, that does not mean that they do not believe in the possibility of a god."



I accept you for what you believe, can you accept me for what I believe? I am not here to change your mind, but only to express my disgust with your oppression of others.

Hmm...so your argument is "I say you don't think for yourself because you're a theist, case closed"

What a useless argument

I've acquired "truth" from personal experiences, you've acquired truth from Richard Dawkins and other atheists. I also provided lots of evidence of "Creator"'s existence, however all was denied, I then asked what would constitute as evidence and all I got were things that I could not possibly gather like "Well if one day God came down" or "If you revive an amputee's leg"...

I did NOT get truth from Holy Scripture and in the past had many doubts and thought that things like heaven, hell, gods, etc...were probably not real or symbolic at best...then however after many experiences everything changed

Also I do not judge atheists at all nor do I condemn them and say they'll go to hell or anything like that, I have repeatedly stated in the past that even atheists can go to heaven if their karma leads them there and I never have condemned atheists for being atheists, only for possessing the attitude you have, which is that theists are sub-human, I don't know what you're talking about, but then again anyone who criticizes atheism must be a "Christian fundementalist" right?

It's always the same with you atheists, if you're a theist, then you're just another delusional fool who doesn't think for himself

 

[Thoreau]

Hmm...so your argument is "I say you don't think for yourself because you're a theist, case closed"

What a useless argument

I've acquired "truth" from personal experiences, you've acquired truth from Richard Dawkins and other atheists. I also provided lots of evidence of "Creator"'s existence, however all was denied, I then asked what would constitute as evidence and all I got were things that I could not possibly gather like "Well if one day God came down" or "If you revive an amputee's leg"...

I did NOT get truth from Holy Scripture and in the past had many doubts and thought that things like heaven, hell, gods, etc...were probably not real or symbolic at best...then however after many experiences everything changed

Also I do not judge atheists at all nor do I condemn them and say they'll go to hell or anything like that, I have repeatedly stated in the past that even atheists can go to heaven if their karma leads them there and I never have condemned atheists for being atheists, only for possessing the attitude you have, which is that theists are sub-human, I don't know what you're talking about, but then again anyone who criticizes atheism must be a "Christian fundementalist" right?

It's always the same with you atheists, if you're a theist, then you're just another delusional fool who doesn't think for himself

You have again proven my point. And guess what... I'm not an atheist. I don't even know who this Richard Dawkins is. I am a spiritual person, not a religious person. I practice many different forms of spirituality, mainly Buddhism. I find the aspects in this world which I find as positive and peaceful and I apply those aspects in my every day life.

 

[ashura]

You have again proven my point. And guess what... I'm not an atheist. I don't even know who this Richard Dawkins is. I am a spiritual person, not a religious person. I practice many different forms of spirituality, mainly Buddhism. I find the aspects in this world which I find as positive and peaceful and I apply those aspects in my every day life.

Just curious MZ3Boy84, would you say you believe in a god or gods?

 

[Thoreau]

Furthermore, I've told you before, DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH or assume you know me in the slightest..

you've acquired truth from Richard Dawkins and other atheists.

False

Hmm...so your argument is "I say you don't think for yourself because you're a theist, case closed"

False.

Evaluate all evidence and all knowledge before assumptions.

 

[Thoreau]

Just curious MZ3Boy84, would you say you believe in a god or gods?

Personally, I do believe in a higher power. I believe that there is a force in the universe which is life. I believe the concept of god is life and life is in all things, thus god is in all things. Its kinda complicated, and very difficult to try to explain through words.

Put it this way... I believe that god is everywhere... god is the wind, the sand, the plants, the animals, the earth, fire, and water. Again, I cannot currently find the right words to express what I believe god to be other than to sum it up in the word "Life".

 

[ashura]

Personally, I do believe in a higher power. I believe that there is a force in the universe which is life. I believe the concept of god is life and life is in all things, thus god is in all things. Its kinda complicated, and very difficult to try to explain through words.

But, if god is life.. then it's not really belief in a god is it? The definition of a god has very specific connotations.

 

[Thoreau]

But, if god is life.. then it's not really belief in a god is it? The definition of a god has very specific connotations.

The idea of God varies from person to person and culture to culture. I believe god to be the life force which exists in all... again, its hard to describe... I really wish I could put it in better terms.

 

[Thoreau]

The idea of God varies from person to person and culture to culture. I believe god to be the life force which exists in all... again, its hard to describe... I really wish I could put it in better terms.

... which is why i usually do not express my personal opinion of God.

 

[ashura]

... which is why i usually do not express my personal opinion of God.

I understand. Maybe it's just that I'm a prick, but the problem I have is whenever someone equates "god" with "a higher power or order". It's not really the same thing. God implies certain connotations.

For example, I wouldn't call those who believe in the concept of the Tao to be believers in a god.

 

[Thoreau]

I understand. Maybe it's just that I'm a prick, but the problem I have is whenever someone equates "god" with "a higher power or order". It's not really the same thing. God implies certain connotations.

For example, I wouldn't call those who believe in the concept of the Tao to be believers in a god.

I cannot agree or disagree with you in this specific example as I have limited knowledge of Taoism.

However, you are actually right in some ways. Your idea of the concepts and connotations of god may be different than someone elses. And thats OK. The concept of what God is or isn't cannot be currently proven and thus are only opinions. And yes, that goes for me too lol. I have my own opinions of what god is and isn't. That does not make them right or wrong, but rather just what I feel is right for me. And what is right for me will not always be right for someone else. And again thats perfectly OK. We are different. No two people will think completely alike.

 

[ashura]

I cannot agree or disagree with you in this specific example as I have limited knowledge of Taoism.

However, you are actually right in some ways. Your idea of the concepts and connotations of god may be different than someone elses. And thats OK. The concept of what God is or isn't cannot be currently proven and thus are only opinions. And yes, that goes for me too lol. I have my own opinions of what god is and isn't. That does not make them right or wrong, but rather just what I feel is right for me. And what is right for me will not always be right for someone else. And again thats perfectly OK. We are different. No two people will think completely alike.

But... what about things like definitions of words?

god (gŏd) Pronunciation Key
n.

1. God
a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
5. A very handsome man.
6. A powerful ruler or despot.

 

[Thoreau]

But... what about things like definitions of words?

god (gŏd) Pronunciation Key
n.

1. God
a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
5. A very handsome man.
6. A powerful ruler or despot.

I'm not sure that I am following you. The definition of God you have provided fits hand-in-hand with what I believe to be god as well, aside from number 5 lol.

 

[ashura]

I'm not sure that I am following you. The definition of God you have provided fits hand-in-hand with what I believe to be god as well, aside from number 5 lol.

Oh... nevermind then. You're right, I'm not able to grasp the entirety of what your god is supposed to be. Before I'd assumed you just meant "life".

 

[Thoreau]

Hey Ashura and Vital. I'd love to continue this conversation, however it is getting late here and its time that I retire for the evening. I shall be on tomorrow to continue if you like. Also, feel free to PM me with any questions or comments you may have. Thanks guys.