VitalOne's Fallacious Rants Against Atheism

[Varda]

Like bacteria...the flagellum, the molecular machines found in cells, etc...

bullshit
the flagellum and the molecular machinery of the cells is perfectly explained by natural selection

 

[VitalOne]

I already did, you failed to provide.

No you didn't...what was your example of what would be realistically measurable, verifiable evidence of God?

bullshit
the flagellum and the molecular machinery of the cells is perfectly explained by natural selection

Right...so you go back to what I said "man we don't care if we never find a naturalistic explanation, nature-did-it"

 

[Varda]

No you didn't...what was your example of what would be realistically measurable, verifiable evidence of God?

an example of ireductible complexity in nature would force me to rule out evolution by natural selection and therefore make me opt for another explanation, maybe design

Right...so you go back to what I said "man we don't care if we never find a naturalistic explanation, nature-did-it"

we HAVE a naturalistic explanation, and it's really good

 

[SnakeLord]

Yes he was, obviously

But no, he wasn't.

why doesn't he use something like the many-worlds interpretation or the superstring theory?

Is there a reason he should?

Don't they also fit the analogy? Oh wait, that's right, they don't ridicule theism

Neither does anything else, you just want to feel like you're a victim and everyone is against you.

 

[VitalOne]

an example of ireductible complexity in nature would force me to rule out evolution by natural selection and therefore make me opt for another explanation, maybe design

I already gave you examples

we HAVE a naturalistic explanation, and it's really good

Yeah we have them, they're just pure mental speculation without any shred of evidence supporting them...

OH WAIT, that's right, atheists don't need evidence for things supporting naturalism and atheism ONLY things that support theism

 

[VitalOne]

But no, he wasn't.

Yes he was

Is there a reason he should?

Is there any reason he shouldn't besides the fact that they don't ridicule theism?

You're simply dodging out of what I said because you know it's true, the reason the example is used is because it ridicules theism

Neither does anything else, you just want to feel like you're a victim and everyone is against you.

Again dodging out of what I said because you KNOW that it's true, the reason the example was used was just to intentionally ridicule theism, if I ridicule atheism then it's trolling, wrong, etc...the moderators won't allow it

 

[VitalOne]

A fine example of atheists' closed-mindedness is SkinWalker deleting the post that was here...it doesn't support atheism, so it's not allowed

For instance Richard Dawkins says anyone who teaches their children to believe in God should be arrested...such vain intolerance by atheists

He and other atheists hope that everyone will become atheists and follow their faith-based belief system...they just can't leave people alone, it's no wonder that Stalin an atheist tried to ban religion and killed over 20 million people...it's just the same as socialism

 

[SnakeLord]

Is there any reason he shouldn't besides the fact that they don't ridicule theism?

Yes there is a reason he shouldn't. An analogy will work better when it has a closer relation to the thing you are making an analogy of. In this instance we are concerned with an unseen, unheard, unevidenced being. A claimed entity with specific claimed attributes etc.

The most appropriate analogy to use would be another unseen, unheard, unevidenced being.

the reason the example is used is because it ridicules theism

But it doesn't, and the only reason you would feel otherwise is if you are actually somewhat embarrased at your own beliefs to begin with. You said:

"if I ridicule atheism"

but I submit that you couldn't unless you're lucky enough to find someone that's embarrased by their atheism. If you think you can anyway then pm me whatever you've got.

 

[VitalOne]

Yes there is a reason he shouldn't. An analogy will work better when it has a closer relation to the thing you are making an analogy of. In this instance we are concerned with an unseen, unheard, unevidenced being. A claimed entity with specific claimed attributes etc.

The most appropriate analogy to use would be another unseen, unheard, unevidenced being.

But fairies are a completely different than the concept than God...the analogy doesn't really make any sense

Also, the analogies of the many-worlds interpretation and the superstring theory also fit perfectly, but they ARE NEVER USED, simply because they do not accomplish the goal of making theism seem ridiculous

But it doesn't, and the only reason you would feel otherwise is if you are actually somewhat embarrased at your own beliefs to begin with. You said:

Oh come on SnakeLord...are you really serious?

So you're telling me when atheists talk about a "Flying Spaghetti Monster" and "Santa Claus" and those same type of analogies it isn't meant to intentionally ridicule theism?

Clearly it is, if you really believe it isn't meant to intentially ridicule theism then explain how

"if I ridicule atheism"

but I submit that you couldn't unless you're lucky enough to find someone that's embarrased by their atheism. If you think you can anyway then pm me whatever you've got.

Yes I could...atheism is "evidence causes something to become true"

 

[Thoreau]

Yes I could...atheism is "evidence causes something to become true"

With all due respect Vital, I believe your definition of atheism is false. What you are describing is agnostism, or atleast a part of it. Most atheists deny a god despite whatever "proof" they may have. Where as most agnostics choose not to idolize a god simply because there is no evidence to do so. Not sure if this makes the most sense to you, but I am sincerely trying to explain it.

And I know you and I have had our fights in the past but I am over that. I am not here to discredit any religion, including Christianity or atheism, just merely trying to help people understand the full context of the proclamations of the many religions in the world.

As you may or may not know, (you were banned for a while and missed a bit), I do believe in a god/higher power, so please, do not result to insulting me or calling me an atheist, because I am far from. I am merely trying to help you, as I try to help everyone, understand the world around them.

 

[Varda]

this is my last reply to you. I'm done going in circles with this baseless argument of yours.

I already gave you examples

flagellum? organels?
go read... seriously, go read

Yeah we have them, they're just pure mental speculation without any shred of evidence supporting them...

evidence of evolution by natural selection abounds... it is everywhere you look

OH WAIT, that's right, atheists don't need evidence for things supporting naturalism and atheism ONLY things that support theism

there is one person in this thread making affirmations without any shred of evidence of even a logic argument to back it, and we all know who that person is

bye

 

[VitalOne]

this is my last reply to you. I'm done going in circles with this baseless argument of yours.



flagellum? organels?
go read... seriously, go read



evidence of evolution by natural selection abounds... it is everywhere you look

ROFL....you do know that evolution (a change in species over time) and abiogenesis (inorganic matter to life) are completley different right?

Maybe you should go read

there is one person in this thread making affirmations without any shred of evidence of even a logic argument to back it, and we all know who that person is

bye

ROFL...in other words "I can't address the argument so I'll just make stuff up"

I used many logical arguments

Maybe you should go read and look up what you yourself claimed

 

[VitalOne]

With all due respect Vital, I believe your definition of atheism is false. What you are describing is agnostism, or atleast a part of it. Most atheists deny a god despite whatever "proof" they may have. Where as most agnostics choose not to idolize a god simply because there is no evidence to do so. Not sure if this makes the most sense to you, but I am sincerely trying to explain it.

And I know you and I have had our fights in the past but I am over that. I am not here to discredit any religion, including Christianity or atheism, just merely trying to help people understand the full context of the proclamations of the many religions in the world.

As you may or may not know, (you were banned for a while and missed a bit), I do believe in a god/higher power, so please, do not result to insulting me or calling me an atheist, because I am far from. I am merely trying to help you, as I try to help everyone, understand the world around them.

Actually, what you just stated is what I think atheism is...however many atheists have told me exclusively that atheism is not believing that there is no God and rather described it as agnosticism or "lacking belief" and also disbelief...somehow they say that's atheism

 

[Sarkus]

...however many atheists have told me exclusively that atheism is not believing that there is no God and rather described it as agnosticism or "lacking belief" and also disbelief...somehow they say that's atheism

That's because they're correct.
For some reason you have had it explained to you over a dozen times and yet you still fail to understand the simple concepts involved.

If you do not have a belief that god exists you are atheist, pure and simple.
Agnosticism is your position on knowledge - e.g. whether you think god can be known, or whether you personally have (no) knowledge of god.

Agnosticism and Atheism are NOT part of the same line, with agnosticism the half-way point between the two.

Many atheists on this site are ALSO agnostics.
Some are not.

So, to understand whether someone is theist or atheist, ask them this one simple question: "Do you believe god exists"?
If they say "yes" they are theist.
If they say "no" (or "no... but I don't believe god doesn't exist" etc) they are atheist.

Comprendez?

No, you probably don't, do you.

 

[SnakeLord]

But fairies are a completely different than the concept than God...the analogy doesn't really make any sense

It most certainly does if you take a moment to actually think about what is being compared. Nobody is saying god is the same as a fairy, or that god is a fairy. The comparison works on the basis that both god and fairies are unseen, unheard, unevidenced beings.

You will still undoubtedly fail to understand this simple concept to which I would then use an analogy between your personal chosen god and some other god... However, even then you laughingly said they're completely different concepts.

Also, the analogies of the many-worlds interpretation and the superstring theory also fit perfectly, but they ARE NEVER USED

They're not 'beings' and thus are not as good to use in an analogy as an actual unseen, unheard, unevidenced 'being'. Further to which, is superstring/many worlds really common knowledge? If not, the person making the analogy must use something that he knows of. Yes?

Oh come on SnakeLord...are you really serious?

Absolutely. I get paid a lot of money for that.

So you're telling me when atheists talk about a "Flying Spaghetti Monster" and "Santa Claus" and those same type of analogies it isn't meant to intentionally ridicule theism?

Absolutely. The fsm, santa, mermaids, leprechauns, fairies, gods etc are all unseen, unheard, unevidenced 'beings' and thus are the perfect choice for analogy.

A god is not small like a leprechaun, a leprechaun doesn't have wings like a fairy and the fsm is the only one made up primarily of noodles, but all that is besides the point of the analogy.

It can be used thusly: "Why do you believe in [insert unseen, unheard, unevidenced being here] but not [insert unseen, unheard, unevidenced being here]?"

You have to understand it from the outside. Why not? Why would you believe in one unseen, unheard, unevidenced being but not another? How do you ever make that decision when they all share the same basis of being unheard, unseen and unevidenced?

Does that help you understand better?

Yes I could...atheism is "evidence causes something to become true"

Is it? Who other than you actually thinks that?

 

[VitalOne]

That's because they're correct.
For some reason you have had it explained to you over a dozen times and yet you still fail to understand the simple concepts involved.

If you do not have a belief that god exists you are atheist, pure and simple.
Agnosticism is your position on knowledge - e.g. whether you think god can be known, or whether you personally have (no) knowledge of god.

Agnosticism and Atheism are NOT part of the same line, with agnosticism the half-way point between the two.

Many atheists on this site are ALSO agnostics.
Some are not.

So, to understand whether someone is theist or atheist, ask them this one simple question: "Do you believe god exists"?
If they say "yes" they are theist.
If they say "no" (or "no... but I don't believe god doesn't exist" etc) they are atheist.

Comprendez?

No, you probably don't, do you.

No,you're wrong

You're using your personal definition of atheism

Sorry agnosticism != atheism....if you don't believe in God then you're an atheist, however if you neither believe nor disbeleive then you're not an atheist, and if you believe then you're at theist

 

[VitalOne]

It most certainly does if you take a moment to actually think about what is being compared. Nobody is saying god is the same as a fairy, or that god is a fairy. The comparison works on the basis that both god and fairies are unseen, unheard, unevidenced beings.

You will still undoubtedly fail to understand this simple concept to which I would then use an analogy between your personal chosen god and some other god... However, even then you laughingly said they're completely different concepts.

Hmm...I understand the analogy, it's just that the analogy does absolutely nothing to show how God doesn't exist...I mean absolutely nothing to very very very highest possible limit

They're not 'beings' and thus are not as good to use in an analogy as an actual unseen, unheard, unevidenced 'being'. Further to which, is superstring/many worlds really common knowledge? If not, the person making the analogy must use something that he knows of. Yes?

But the analogy still works with there being no evidence, no way to gather evidence, and nothing can be considered evidence....

Absolutely. I get paid a lot of money for that.



Absolutely. The fsm, santa, mermaids, leprechauns, fairies, gods etc are all unseen, unheard, unevidenced 'beings' and thus are the perfect choice for analogy.

A god is not small like a leprechaun, a leprechaun doesn't have wings like a fairy and the fsm is the only one made up primarily of noodles, but all that is besides the point of the analogy.

It can be used thusly: "Why do you believe in [insert unseen, unheard, unevidenced being here] but not [insert unseen, unheard, unevidenced being here]?"

Hmm...after reading this I have to wonder if you have any knowledge of theology, logic, or anything at all...

Let me explain:
The reason I can believe in X and not Y, even though both X and Y are both unseen, unheard, unevidenced, etc....is because X has innumerably different attributes, characteristics, properties, etc...from Y, in other words X is a COMPLETELY different concept than Y

THATS WHY

You have to understand it from the outside. Why not? Why would you believe in one unseen, unheard, unevidenced being but not another? How do you ever make that decision when they all share the same basis of being unheard, unseen and unevidenced?

Does that help you understand better?

No not at all...

You see if you believed that God = fairies, then it would make sense, but God != fairies, the reason you can believe in God and not fairies is simply because God is completely different concept than fairies....

You see the existence of fairies has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of God, therefore what would make sense is if you didn't believe in God because of something related to the existence of God, not because of something completely unrelated

Is it? Who other than you actually thinks that?

Atheists do...

That's why atheists say "There's no reason to believe in something UNTIL there's evidence"

It's almost as if atheists really believe that in this present time there is nothing that can exist and be true without there being evidence...

This is why I say atheists believe "evidence causes something to become true"

 

[Enmos]

No,you're wrong

You're using your personal definition of atheism

Sorry agnosticism != atheism....if you don't believe in God then you're an atheist, however if you neither believe nor disbeleive then you're not an atheist, and if you believe then you're at theist

If you neither belief nor disbelief, do you belief ?
The answer to that is, of course, 'No'.
The definition of atheist is 'someone that doesn't believe'.
So actually agnosticism is a form of atheism.

 

[VitalOne]

If you neither belief nor disbelief, do you belief ?
The answer to that is, of course, 'No'.
The definition of atheist is 'someone that doesn't believe'.
So actually agnosticism is a form of atheism.

Right...but you don't disbelieve either (you conveniently left that out for some reason) so you can't be classified as either

 

[Enmos]

Right...but you don't disbelieve either (you conveniently left that out for some reason) so you can't be classified as either

Did you look at the definition I gave ?