VitalOne's Fallacious Rants Against Atheism

[greenberg]

No the answer is that you "you don't know", when someone "doesn't know" it means they make no claims regarding whether or not a claim is true or false meaning they neither believe nor disbelieve the claim meaning they lack belief and disbelief...

That is not enough, though.
It needs to be taken into consideration whether a person (1) thinks that the thing in question is of a kind that can be known; (2) or whether they think it is a thing that cannot be known.

Note that thinking of something as a thing that can be known does not imply that one already knows it.

Re (1) - The attitude that people usually have towards things is that they can be known - even though they don't necessarily know them yet.
E.g. When I buy a new pair of running shoes, I have the attitude that I will know whether they are good for running on asphalt or not; even though before I actually try them out on asphalt, I don't know whether they will be good for it or not - but I hold that I can find out.

Re (2) - In the example with the running shoes, holding the attitude that I cannot know whether they will be good on asphalt or not, would imply that while I run on asphalt, I cannot tell whether the shoes are good for it or not.

 

[Varda]

The reason why there's no supposed evidence is because ATHEISM IS UNFALSIFIABLE

There's lots of evidence that can stand the logical trial, however since atheism is unfalsifiable, no amount of evidence can ever prove God's existence

i don't think there is

What? You just completely changed the subject and made it appear as if you were addressing something...

did i? or did you just not understand what i was saing before? I said:

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

and then i complemented that by saying that things which ARE in accordance witht he laws of physics are here to replace mysticism

i am adressing the fact that a person can believe whatever he wants, but we have very good logical explanations for a lot of stuff, and we're on our way to finding out a lot more. that in itself does not rule out the existence of a god, but it does rule out the necessity for one to exist

There's lots of examples of irreductible complexity, for instance abiogenesis is a failed hypothesis, atheists say "so what if there's little no zero evidence of abiogenesis, that doesn't mean it didn't happen, case closed"

abiogenesis is not a failed hypothesis, where did you get that? it can and has been reproduced in lab experiments, read up on Miller-Urey. It is not as strongly studied and documented as evolution, but it goes way easier on my intellect than the other option

and stop saying case closed will you? it makes you sound like an idiot

There is no proven natural explanation for genetic information

natural selection explains the increasing complexity of genetic information very well

 

[greenberg]

Would you mind elaborating?

That would be very complex ...
But in short - in order to either believe or disbelieve, one must hold a stance, a position, from which or in relation to which one can declare belief or disbelief. But without a stance at all, we can speak neither of belief nor of disbelief. But we can still be aware that concepts exist.

 

[VitalOne]

No. I lack a belief in martians. I have no valid reason to believe that martians do exist. That would make me a weak amartianist. Of course martians might exist - there might be millions of them living underneath the martian soil. That does not make me a weak martianist - it simply defines me as a weak amartianist instead of a strong amartianist. Got it?

Hmm...do the existence of Martians have anything to do with the existence of God?

Maybe you're right, "If Martians don't exist, then God doesn't exist" (ROFL)

If you say it has nothing to do with the existence of God then you just fully admitted that you're argument is USELESS

I guess you're under the impression that if you keep repeating it to yourself that it will somehow come true? It is in fact explained time and time and time again to try and ensure that theists don't make the mistakes that they continue to make regardless.

You didn't explain anything, all you did was re-use the very same logical fallacy over and over again "I don't believe in X, do you? So I also don't believe in God" (even though the existence of X has absolutey NOTHING to do with the existence of God)

How so? Tell me vital one, how has anything been dismissed when my very sentence started with "they might exist"? Well? Hello?

Because you deny all other evidence and even lied about searching for evidence

I did just that, I found none. Next?

Why do you enjoy lying for? Anyone can go google or youtube it yourself and see that you'll find

But they do, absolutely regardless to whether you write in caps or not. The answer is: a complete and total lack of evidence to suggest their existence. Furthermore you need to realise that ultimately thor and zeus are gods, so you can't logically say they have nothing to do with god - seeings as they are gods. Did you not know that? Sheesh..

ROFL!!!

You're right, "if FSM doesn't exist, then God doesn't exist"

"You can't compare a god to a god.. THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER" :bugeye:

ROFL, you can't understand simply logic...let me explain

The existence of something that has completely different attributes, properties, and characteristics from another thing HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER'S EXISTENCE WHY CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND THIS?

So you question whether one can ultimately know whether a leprechaun exists or not?

If it's unverifiable, then yes, now you're using an argument from personal incredulity again "it sounds ridiculous, must be false"

If 'geocentric theory' lacks any evidence whatsoever to suggest its existence, then it is comparable to gods, and leprechauns and anything else that lacks any and all evidence to suggest its existence. Do you not understand such simple things?

Well what if I take a unverifiable theory, like the superstring theory and say "Well you know I don't believe in the geocentric theory, so I don't believe in the superstring theory"

This argument doesn't falsify the superstring theory

But this is not the argument lol. Come on, how many times need it be explained to you?

No you haven't all you've done is RE-STATE THE SAME LOGICAL FALLACY

"I see no reason to believe in FSM, Thor, Zeus, [whatever the hell you insert here], so I also see no reason to believe in God"

Thereby matching the EXACT PRECISE DEFINITION OF A NON-SEQUITUR

The problem with your argument is that it assumes that all those things listed have the same attributes, properties, characteristics, when in something knwon as "reality" they DO NOT

Is the atheist saying it or are you? Seems the only person that's looking for god of the gaps here is you. I will accept right here and now as viable and acceptable evidence if you can pray my eyesight back to it's original perfection. If you say "jesus, please give this man his perfect eyesight back" and it happens now then I will bow to jesus for the rest of my life.

I will accept the evidence, no need to get into that whole 'god of the gaps' because the only person doing it is... you.

I said something that CANNOT be considered a "god of the gaps"

 

[VitalOne]

abiogenesis is not a failed hypothesis, where did you get that? it can and has been reproduced in lab experiments, read up on Miller-Urey. It is not as strongly studied and documented as evolution, but it goes way easier on my intellect than the other option

and stop saying case closed will you? it makes you sound like an idiot

ROFL, obviously you have no knowledge of biology...yeah the Miller-Urey experiments show that amino acids can form, but amino acids are building blocks, its a shame that molecular machines, genetic information, RNA, etc...are completely different from amino acids

It's like someone saying "The material the Great Pyramids are made of arises naturally, therefore the Great Pyramids arised naturally, the design features of the Great Pyramids don't matter"

natural selection explains the increasing complexity of genetic information very well

ROFL, natural selection explains EVOLUTION not ABIOGENESIS

Right now they are unable to show that the RNA and molecular machines arose naturally, they only blindly speculate that they do

 

[VitalOne]

Why shouldn't there be evidence present? You've mentioned this a few times but fail to explain yourself.

--

polytheist: believes in multiple gods
monotheist: believes in one god
theist: basically believes in a god or gods, (combination of the two above)
agnostic: one cannot know whether a god exists or not
weak atheist: lacks a belief in gods
strong atheist: believes gods do not exist.

(agnostic can be added to some of the others: agnostic theist etc).

Weak atheism is the valid ground: one lacks a belief because of the lack of evidence but the possibility remains. 'Lacking' a belief does not mean belief against, (strong).

Uhm, let me say this for the millionth time....

THE REASON THERE SHOULD NOT BE EVIDENCE PRESENT IS BECAUSE NOTHING CAN BE CONSIDERED EVIDENCE JUST LIKE HOW NOTHING CAN BE CURRENTLY BE CONSIDERED EVIDENCE FOR THE MANY-WORLDS INTERPRETATION OR ANY OTHER UNVERIFIABLE THEORY

 

[Thoreau]

To the Christians:

Shut up already! Get over the fact some people believe something different than you. Your no more or less "irrational" than anyone else.



To the Atheists:

Same thing goes! Let people believe what they want as long as it does not hurt you.

To everyone else:

Sit back and enjoy the show... and pass the popcorn.

 

[VitalOne]

To the Christians:

Shut up already! Get over the fact some people believe something different than you. Your no more or less "irrational" than anyone else.



To the Atheists:

Same thing goes! Let people believe what they want as long as it does not hurt you.

To everyone else:

Sit back and enjoy the show... and pass the popcorn.

You're not the coach, GTFO

 

[VitalOne]

there is no benefit for theism for anyone as well.

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

Sure there is, theism gives people more hope, liked I talked to this atheist the other day and he told me that life was meaningless, you just live and die and that's it

We know. Hence the problem.

Yeah, the problem is your great atheistic faith

 

[Thoreau]

You're not the coach, GTFO

I can play that game... STFU.

 

[Thoreau]

Dude, don't get angry. It's not my fault that your so insecure with your own beliefs that you have to constantly persecute others to prove that your "right".

 

[SnakeLord]

THE REASON THERE SHOULD NOT BE EVIDENCE PRESENT IS BECAUSE NOTHING CAN BE CONSIDERED EVIDENCE

Incorrect, caps do not help your case.

For instance: If this god came down once more, sat on a mountain and boomed orders at humanity, I'd say that was quite good evidence of his existence. The list goes on. Ultimately of course you could come up with alternatives to the evidence but this is true of even santa claus.

If, for instance, you saw some flying reindeer and a big jolly fat guy saying "ho ho ho", you could say that it wasn't real, but a figment of your imagination, or some prank set up by someone. Perhaps you're on one of those TV programmes where they get a laugh at your expense? There are always alternatives regardless to whether we're talking gods, santa claus, or even if life itself exists.

As such your argument is inherently pointless.

What it comes down to is the weight of the evidence. gods don't have any, much like leprechauns, fairies and so on..

Capiche?

 

[VitalOne]

Incorrect, caps do not help your case.

For instance: If this god came down once more, sat on a mountain and boomed orders at humanity, I'd say that was quite good evidence of his existence. The list goes on. Ultimately of course you could come up with alternatives to the evidence but this is true of even santa claus.

If, for instance, you saw some flying reindeer and a big jolly fat guy saying "ho ho ho", you could say that it wasn't real, but a figment of your imagination, or some prank set up by someone. Perhaps you're on one of those TV programmes where they get a laugh at your expense? There are always alternatives regardless to whether we're talking gods, santa claus, or even if life itself exists.

As such your argument is inherently pointless.

What it comes down to is the weight of the evidence. gods don't have any, much like leprechauns, fairies and so on..

Capiche?

Ok Einstein, let me re-state is in even a way you can understand...

There's no way to gather any evidence of God's existence...you can't gather an event (like the atheists' favorite, well if God came down)

There's no way to gather any evidence for the many-worlds interpretation either, but this doesn't indicate it's false, just unverifiable

Also God coming down wouldn't falsify atheism, according to Richard Dawkins there can be advanced extraterrestials who appear God-like to us because of advanced technology

 

[SnakeLord]

There's no way to gather any evidence of God's existence...you can't gather an event (like the atheists' favorite, well if God came down)

Like I mentioned on the other thread, the effectiveness of prayer can certainly be an adequate way of gathering evidence for the existence of a specific deity. If you prayed to jesus to return the leg you lost and lo and behold your leg grew back then that is decent evidence for the existence of the deity you prayed to.

However...

Also God coming down wouldn't falsify atheism, according to Richard Dawkins ....

Like mentioned on my last post this is true of anything and everything - including life itself. We might really be in the matrix or merely exist in the dream state of a floating omnipotent cloud. Ultimately anything could be something else - which is why evidence is so important.

 

[(Q)]

There's great confusion among these terms and they are loosely used and have multiple definitions....

What's the purpose of words like "weak atheism" when they are really just mean "atheism" or "agnosticism"

How is weak atheism any different from saying God doesn't exist? For instance weak atheists say "I lack the belief that God exists" which is the same as saying "I do not believe God exists" which is the same as saying "I believe God does not exist"

What's the difference and why do weak atheists distinguish themselves from agnostics if they neither believe nor disbelieve?

It's quite cut and dried, actually. You can sum it up thusly:

I will accept your claims for the existence of your god, as long as you can demonstrate those claims. If you are unable to demonstrate your claims for your gods existence, I have no reason to accept them.

Simple really.

 

[ashura]

That would be very complex ...
But in short - in order to either believe or disbelieve, one must hold a stance, a position, from which or in relation to which one can declare belief or disbelief. But without a stance at all, we can speak neither of belief nor of disbelief. But we can still be aware that concepts exist.

I'm still not following why you think this would support Vital's claim. An agnostic is absolutely in a position to either believe or not believe in God.

 

[ashura]

Can we keep "evidence of God" in another thread? This one was made specifically to discuss whether or not the idea of a weak atheist/agnostic atheist is valid.

 

[VitalOne]

It's quite cut and dried, actually. You can sum it up thusly:

I will accept your claims for the existence of your god, as long as you can demonstrate those claims. If you are unable to demonstrate your claims for your gods existence, I have no reason to accept them.

Simple really.

What do you mean by my claims?

Like I mentioned on the other thread, the effectiveness of prayer can certainly be an adequate way of gathering evidence for the existence of a specific deity. If you prayed to jesus to return the leg you lost and lo and behold your leg grew back then that is decent evidence for the existence of the deity you prayed to.

However...

Ok so you'll only accept evidence of prayer working and God coming down, other empirical evidence like evidence for design is meaningless (you know evidence you can gather), right?

Like mentioned on my last post this is true of anything and everything - including life itself. We might really be in the matrix or merely exist in the dream state of a floating omnipotent cloud. Ultimately anything could be something else - which is why evidence is so important.

There's massive amounts of evidence of design (the only evidence you can gather for a creator), yet atheists reject and deny it, then pretend there's no evidence

 

[VitalOne]

I'm still not following why you think this would support Vital's claim. An agnostic is absolutely in a position to either believe or not believe in God.

No agnostics NEITHER believe nor disbelieve by believing the existence is unknown

 

[ashura]

To the Christians:

Shut up already! Get over the fact some people believe something different than you. Your no more or less "irrational" than anyone else.



To the Atheists:

Same thing goes! Let people believe what they want as long as it does not hurt you.

To everyone else:

Sit back and enjoy the show... and pass the popcorn.

You do realize that you're in a discussion forum right?