VitalOne's Fallacious Rants Against Atheism

[SkinWalker]

How do atheists account for these fallacies?

I can't, of course, speak for all atheists, but those who are atheist due to rationalism would dismiss your collection of fallacies as a fallacy. A straw man, to be precise.

No rationalist whom I know uses those arguments in the manner you've characterized them. Therefore, there is no reason to respond to them. QED.

 

[Varda]

he is correct it is a logical fallacy one he is ever so fond of falling prey to

in the sense that the fact that something is absurd it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, ok

 

[Enmos]

"There's no evidence God exists, so God doesn't exist"
And indeed there is no evidence but that doesn't mean God doesn't exist. It means there is no reason to assume a God does exist.

"You can't prove God exists, so God cannot exist"
Maybe so.. It's a weird thing, something that cannot be proven..
It's certainy makes one think, doesn't it ?

"Lack of evidence that God exists indicates that the existence of God is unlikely"
What is the fallacy here ??

"Only what the current evidence at the present time indicates is the truth"
That just bullshit lol I never say or think that.

"Do you really believe there's an invisible man, sky-daddy, etc...?"
"It sounds like religion is a fantasy, fictional, a myth, made up"
:shrug: Never said that..
Although it could easily have been made up.

"Well I don't believe in Zeus, an Invisible Pink Unicorn, Santa Claus, etc...so God must not exist"
Does not follow and I never heard any atheist say that.

"If God really existed, then there would be no more suffering in the world, only good things would happen"
That is not a fallacy. It could be but it would depend on the unknowable nature of God.

unfalsifiability: Atheism is unfalsifiable, just the same as any other faith-based belief system, in EVERY and ANY condition atheists can invoke the "god of the gaps" or "god-did-it" excuse and deny any and every imaginable amount of evidence. Anything that is unfalsifiable is just the same as any other faith-based belief.
So you are saying that your faith is illogical and irrational, and just as bad as atheism ?

 

[phlogistician]

You don't know him yet, do you ? lol

Ah, well, I have been following some of his threads;

My debating skills far surpassed any atheist's debating skills

so I knew the answer to the question I posed already. His debating skills are lacking, he builds straw men based on his own skewed perceptions, and then creates weak and unpersuading arguments against his own creation.

Statements like the above just prove his arrogance. Funnily though it was never a choice, he's both arrogant and and atheist, I just wanted him to to hoist himself by his own petard, and pick one!

 

[VitalOne]

why is it you wish to inflict a standard upon people without following said standard yourself

Inflict what standard? Logic? Oh no I can't do that ROFL

This thread is a waste of webspace!!!

Ofcourse it is, anything exposing atheism is a waste of time, anything favoring atheism is great and should be praised

That's not fair. You do that too.

Do what? I already said many times that both atheism AND theism are irrational

Vital One, stop beating yourself up!
The self flaggellation is just getting ugly.

p.s let the poor silly atheists believe they are superior and chill out in your superior knowledge, PLEASE!

It's just a question, why don't you have any problems with atheists criticizing theism but only with threads critical of atheism?

:bugeye:

what evidence?

Type of in "evidence of God" in google or youtube

 

[VitalOne]

Vitalone, your opening premise is a straw man. Atheists merely do not believe in your God. You are as much of an atheist as I, unless you beleive equally in Pan, Loki, Ganesh, Shiva, Odin, Ceridwen, Ninhursag, Baal, Huitzilopochtli, Amaterasu, Aten, Dagon, Mithras, or Quetzalcoatl, to name but a few, some of which doubltess you have never heard of, let alone pondered on their existence!

ROFL you say it's a strawman (meaning misrepresentation) yet you use the very same arguments that are supposedly strawmen...ROFL

It's not a strawman, Richard Dawkins and many atheists like your OWNSELF uses these very same arguments

For instance you just talked about other gods in order to discredit another God, non-sequitur

ROFL you proved your ownself wrong

YOU ARE AN ATHEIST TOO, unless you are arrogant and think that there is only one god that could possibly exist, and you happen to be right in your beliefs while others are misguided. So you are either an atheist, or an arrogant prig. Which is it?

No, I'm not, I don't make any claims regarding the existence or non-existence of gods or beings I don't know about, so I'm agnostic to them

I get the distinct feeling that you think you are superior yourself Vital.

I don't think I'm superior and I'm an atheist.. so how do I fit in your theory
?

Yes you do, that's why atheists say that everyone else besides atheists are just delusional fools trapped in an imaginary fantasy, they use magical thinking and are deluded into believing fiction

 

[Varda]

Type of in "evidence of God" in google or youtube

Don't expect me to do your research for you. You claim evidence, you bring it.

 

[VitalOne]

Don't expect me to do your research for you. You claim evidence, you bring it.

I'm going to go off topic, this always happens

 

[Varda]

i guess we can rule that last one out, then

 

[VitalOne]

i guess we can rule that last one out, then

No, it's unfalsifiable...if you want to talk about it make another thread

There's lots of evidence of design, the anthropic principle, intelligent design, the problem of induction, etc...

The reason atheism is unfalsifiable is because no atheist has EVER been able to give me an example of evidence that cannot be considered a "god of the gaps" or a "god-did-it" explanation

 

[VitalOne]

You don't know him yet, do you ? lol

Yeah he doesn't, he uses amateurish tactics

how is that a fallacy? you can believe anything you want... there are many much less absurd things to believe, though. If such a believe doesn't offend your intelect, then good for you!

Because just because something doesn't sound true doesn't indicate that it's
false...

For instance if you told an ancient person about blackholes or "something in space more powerful than light sucking everything up" it might not have sounded true, but it was still true

Thanks for re-confirming that this is not a strawman

evidence indicates the truth...
once again, how is that a fallacy?

Because an absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence....

No evidence that the Earth revolved around the Sun didn't indicate that the Sun revolved around the Earth

No evidence of the many-worlds interpretation doesn't indicate that it's false

Thanks for re-confirming that this is not a strawman

I can't, of course, speak for all atheists, but those who are atheist due to rationalism would dismiss your collection of fallacies as a fallacy. A straw man, to be precise.

No rationalist whom I know uses those arguments in the manner you've characterized them. Therefore, there is no reason to respond to them. QED.

Yes they have, Richard Dawkins uses them, is he considered a rationalist?

 

[VitalOne]

what god? as phlogistician pointed out, if you want to choose a good, you have to be an atheist regarding all the other thousands... atheists just rule out +1 god... except if you're a politheist, then uh.. I don't really want to be in a discussion with a politheist

besides, there is always the possibility that you picked the wrong god... then where does that leave you?



either that or god does not listen to prayers

I don't understand how this has any relation to the thread...all you did was use the very same fallacy I pointed out again

 

[VitalOne]

This is a misunderstanding on your part - and to be honest you should be well past this point by now as it has been explained to you on numerous occasions.

Lack of evidence for gods existing simply boils down to having no reason to believe they do. See part 3 for more on this.

Ah, but you're wrong, lack of evidence boils down to having no reason to believe nor disbelieve. Atheists conveniently leave out the "nor disbelieve" part in order to preserve the great atheistic faith

It is quite bizarre to think that people will accept belief in one thing out of trillions without any evidence whatsoever and merely on the word of paedophiles and old books. These beings - from sky daddy's to invisible men, might exist, the incredulity comes from people believing they do for no good reason whatsoever.

So you agree, you accept the illogical position of using nothing more than personal incredulity + ignorance "it kind of seems false, case closed"

Thanks for re-confirming another supposed strawman

There is no evidence to suggest gods exist - be that yhwh, zeus, or the fsm. Likewise there is no evidence to suggest that santa claus, leprechauns or the flying dodo of mount hogglethwog exists and thus the comparison.

Yes there is, there's lots

The difference is there an absence of evidence of Santa Claus existing when there should be evidence present, thereby falsifying your entire argument

In the case of God, there is an absence of evidence when there shouldn't be any evidence present

You wont find people saying "there's no evidence that leprechauns exist so god must not exist", that's simply stupidity or another misunderstanding on your part. The comparison is used simply to give you an understanding as to why we do not believe in certain beings, (complete lack of evidence).

Actually it's stupidity on your part, you're telling me you don't believe in something because you also don't believe in something else completely unrelated?

It still matches the exact definition of non-sequitur, even if atheists don't openely say "I don't believe in FSM so God doesn't exist" they directly imply it

Otherwise, according to you, this atheistic argument does absolutely nothing to show how God doesn't exist, or why you don't believe in God

Why don't you believe in leprechauns? Complete lack of evidence right? Voila.

No wrong again, I don't believe in Leprechauns because there's an absence of evidence, when there should be evidence present

In the case of God there is an absence of evidence when there should NOT be evidence present

"Voila" (ROFL)

Incorrect. Simply show one instance of a god's existence and the lack of belief in that god is falsified. Capiche?

Hmm...can you give me an example of what can be considered evidence that cannot be considered a "god of the gaps"?

The original claimant not being all that intelligent. Back to the drawing board with you.

ROFL, I disproved all your claims, nice try

Maybe you should try harder

 

[VitalOne]

So have you decided? So far I see no reason to choose atheism over theism at all...there's no benefit of atheism for anyone, unless you like the idea of doing bad deeds and facing no consequence

 

[draqon]

So have you decided? So far I see no reason to choose atheism over theism at all...there's no benefit of atheism for anyone, unless you like the idea of doing bad deeds and facing no consequence

there is no benefit for theism for anyone as well.

God has made me drown in my own sea of tears.

 

[ashura]

No, I'm not, I don't make any claims regarding the existence or non-existence of gods or beings I don't know about, so I'm agnostic to them

Being agnostic to them means you're in a state of disbelief in regards to them. So you are in fact acting like an atheist towards all those other gods.

You need to stop denying the existence of weak atheism.

 

[Varda]

No, it's unfalsifiable...if you want to talk about it make another thread

There's lots of evidence of design, the anthropic principle, intelligent design, the problem of induction, etc...

The reason atheism is unfalsifiable is because no atheist has EVER been able to give me an example of evidence that cannot be considered a "god of the gaps" or a "god-did-it" explanation

if there really was any sustainable evidence at all, we would not be having this discussion

we have a better scientific explanation that can completely rule out the necessity for a designer, which is illogical, so why pick the illogical option over the logical one?

 

[Varda]

Yeah he doesn't, he uses amateurish tactics


Because just because something doesn't sound true doesn't indicate that it's
false...

For instance if you told an ancient person about blackholes or "something in space more powerful than light sucking everything up" it might not have sounded true, but it was still true

Thanks for re-confirming that this is not a strawman

things that are not in accordance with the laws of physics and with logic can't be considered true, no matter now hard you want it to be

Because an absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence....

No evidence that the Earth revolved around the Sun didn't indicate that the Sun revolved around the Earth

No evidence of the many-worlds interpretation doesn't indicate that it's false

Thanks for re-confirming that this is not a strawman

i shall repeat
things that are not in accordance with the laws of physics and with logic can't be considered true, no matter now hard you want it to be

 

[SnakeLord]

Ah, but you're wrong, lack of evidence boils down to having no reason to believe nor disbelieve. Atheists conveniently leave out the "nor disbelieve" part in order to preserve the great atheistic faith

I think you need to step back from your hatred for atheism for one second and actually listen to what those atheists have told you time and time again: The atheists I know and the majority of atheists here lack a belief in gods but do not proclaim that it is not possible for gods to exist. They specifically tell you time and time again that they "lack a belief", not have a belief against. This is the hurdle you are falling at. These people are termed 'weak atheists' and comprise the mass majority of atheists on this forum. Sit down for a few minutes until that has firmly stuck itself in your brain. From that moment on, we hopefully wont have these problems. I get the feeling however that your personal hatred will prevent you from understanding such a simple thing.

So you agree, you accept the illogical position of using nothing more than personal incredulity + ignorance "it kind of seems false, case closed"

Sure, who says "it kind of seems false, case closed"? Certainly no-one here.

If you're talking about my quote then I would suggest you wake up. Nowhere is it implied that "it seems kind of false, case closed", it may very well all be true. It is merely bizarre that someone would assert that it is true without a shred of evidence to suggest that it is true.

Would you like me to draw pictures? Perhaps that will help better.

Thanks for re-confirming another supposed strawman

As pointed out several times, every strawman on this thread is one of your own creations. I understand that it's coming up to bonfire night so I shall let it go.

Yes there is, there's lots

Why bother? I'm going to reply "such as?" and will never ever receive a decent response from you.

Anyway.. such as?

The difference is there an absence of evidence of Santa Claus existing when there should be evidence present, thereby falsifying your entire argument

Although this is arguable, (perhaps there's no good children anymore so santa has given up delivering - but still exists somewhere in the North Pole), try leprechauns or the flying spaghetti monster. Difference is...?

Actually it's stupidity on your part, you're telling me you don't believe in something because you also don't believe in something else completely unrelated?

No, it's no wonder you're having such problems. For many unevidenced things of similar nature, (supernatural entities/those that can't be seen freely), you are strong atheist. You wont give the idea the time of day, you just declare it false and done with it. You don't do the same with one god out of billions even though it is on exactly the same evidential footing as all the others, (i.e complete lack of any evidence)... You go on to say:

I don't believe in Leprechauns because there's an absence of evidence, when there should be evidence present

But this is patently false unless you have been to the end of the rainbow, have explored the entire galaxy etc etc. Why should there be evidence present? You see, you're adopting double standards. The question is why?

even if atheists don't openely say "I don't believe in FSM so God doesn't exist" they directly imply it

But they don't. This is clearly what you want so that you can believe that atheism is in the same position as theism but all your jumping about with your fingers in your ears shouting la la la wont change the fact that you're wrong.

Otherwise, according to you, this atheistic argument does absolutely nothing to show how God doesn't exist, or why you don't believe in God

Why would it? Atheists don't say "god doesn't exist", they merely lack a belief in them.

Hmm...can you give me an example of what can be considered evidence that cannot be considered a "god of the gaps"?

This was covered in another thread and you denied everything mentioned so I am unsure of the value in trying it here. It can be said that if you prayed to a specific entity and you grew a lost leg back that it would be considered good evidence. As with everything, testing is the key.

ROFL, I disproved all your claims, nice try

If you say so.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Atheism is entirely based off logical fallacies or false assumptions...

argument from ignorance:
...

argument from personal incredulity:
...

non-sequitur:
...

unfalsifiability:
...

How do atheists account for these fallacies?

It's simple, the fallacies have nothing to do with atheism. It is your understanding of atheism that is incorrect. Why not explicitly define atheism in your own words and the atheists can help you identify the incorrect parts?