VitalOne's Fallacious Rants Against Atheism

[SnakeLord]

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

I take it you were asleep throughout my last post? I shall try the vital one approach: THAT IS NOT THE ARGUMENT!!11one!

martians might exist, gods might exist.. neither has any supportive evidence to suggest they do and thus atheists withold a belief in them until such time where there is evidence to suggest that they do.

Am I talking in a foreign language?

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

Look up, read, get a clue.

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"

Point out where I said that.

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

I have been debating these issues for decades. I can assure you I have heard all the claims and seen all the purported 'evidence'. I want to see what you consider viable evidence for the existence of gods.

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

Don't be silly. I'll agree there are plenty of claims and plenty of opinions, there isn't any 'evidence'.

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

What? Get off the crack.

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?

Nobody ever said that they did, merely that they all lack any evidence to suggest they exist. Wakey wakey. Btw all gods are gods...

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

Where? Those that know me know I wouldn't say leprechauns don't exist, I happen to know one personally.

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"

Then you would be careering on to a completely different road. You could say: " superstring theory is comparable to geocentric theory in that they both lack any evidence to suggest their reality" regardless to their differences. How you get from there to what you're saying is anyones guess. From my last post: "But this is not the argument lol. Come on, how many times need it be explained to you?"

So, how many times?

"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"

I guess a few more times :bugeye: That is not the argument. See above.

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

No it doesn't. It compares one characteristic only: The complete lack of evidence to suggest their existence. Nothing else, nada, zip.

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

Well that doesn't leave anything - with reference to anything - be it gods, life itself, whether a banana is truly yellow etc etc and so on.

 

[ashura]

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

By believing the existence is unknown, they're in a state of disbelief!

 

[VitalOne]

I take it you were asleep throughout my last post? I shall try the vital one approach: THAT IS NOT THE ARGUMENT!!11one!

martians might exist, gods might exist.. neither has any supportive evidence to suggest they do and thus atheists withold a belief in them until such time where there is evidence to suggest that they do.

Am I talking in a foreign language?



Look up, read, get a clue.



Point out where I said that.



I have been debating these issues for decades. I can assure you I have heard all the claims and seen all the purported 'evidence'. I want to see what you consider viable evidence for the existence of gods.



Don't be silly. I'll agree there are plenty of claims and plenty of opinions, there isn't any 'evidence'.



What? Get off the crack.



Nobody ever said that they did, merely that they all lack any evidence to suggest they exist. Wakey wakey. Btw all gods are gods...



Where? Those that know me know I wouldn't say leprechauns don't exist, I happen to know one personally.



Then you would be careering on to a completely different road. You could say: " superstring theory is comparable to geocentric theory in that they both lack any evidence to suggest their reality" regardless to their differences. How you get from there to what you're saying is anyones guess. From my last post: "But this is not the argument lol. Come on, how many times need it be explained to you?"

So, how many times?



I guess a few more times :bugeye: That is not the argument. See above.



No it doesn't. It compares one characteristic only: The complete lack of evidence to suggest their existence. Nothing else, nada, zip.



Well that doesn't leave anything - with reference to anything - be it gods, life itself, whether a banana is truly yellow etc etc and so on.

Uhm....can you tell me how this isn't a non-sequitur? You simply re-stated for the millionth time the same logic...

Please tell me what is your argument and what is the point of mentioning FSMs, Zeus, Martians, etc...even though they have absolutely nothing to do with the existence of God...

Also your martian exmaple is not analgous, there SHOULD be evidence present on Mars that martians existed, but this evidence is absent, where as with God there should NOT be (direct) evidence present that God exists, and there is NOT

 

[VitalOne]

By believing the existence is unknown, they're in a state of disbelief!

No they're not you're deluded by your great atheistic bias (faith)

By believing something us unknown they're in neither belief nor disbelief...if I believe the existence of aliens is unknown it means I make no claims regarding whether or not aliens actually exist meaning I neither believe aliens exist nor disbelieve that aliens exist...

It's absolutely not the same as disbelief nor belief, it is neither

 

[(Q)]

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?

There is no evidence for design. Btw, could you talk to your god about extending the "Expiry Date" stamped on my forehead?

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

Massive? Have you even an iota of evidence revealing design?

 

[SnakeLord]

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?

No, where was that said?

As I did say to you, it comes down to weight. ID doesn't have any when scrutinised, (indeed intelligent design has had to be renamed incompetent design). Of course we can debate the ins and outs of this claimed evidence but it still remains a giant leap away from worship, sacrifices, only eating certain foods, behaving in a certain sexual manner etc etc.

There's massive amounts of evidence of design

Not really, no. There is in fact none.

yet atheists reject and deny it, then pretend there's no evidence

Any man of reason that has looked at the claimed evidence would do the same. You've already told everyone here that theists are illogical, so why would anyone take them seriously?

However, what are you telling me exactly? That anything you claim is evidence must be accepted? Hmm...

 

[VitalOne]

Don't be silly. I'll agree there are plenty of claims and plenty of opinions, there isn't any 'evidence'.

Right so you admit it, nothing is considered evidence to you besides things like "well if one day God came down" or "well if you prayed and revived an amputee's leg"

Right? Basically anything realistically measurable, verifiable, etc...is not considered evidence to you, right?

 

[ashura]

No they're not you're deluded by your great atheistic bias (faith)

By believing something us unknown they're in neither belief nor disbelief...if I believe the existence of aliens is unknown it means I make no claims regarding whether or not aliens actually exist meaning I neither believe aliens exist nor disbelieve that aliens exist...

It's absolutely not the same as disbelief nor belief, it is neither

You did catch me on this, I misspoke again. My mistake.

What I meant to say was, if they think the existence of God is unknown, and you ask them if God exists and they say any answer other than yes, then they're in a state of disbelief.

 

[SnakeLord]

Please tell me what is your argument and what is the point of mentioning FSMs, Zeus, Martians, etc...even though they have absolutely nothing to do with the existence of God...

Explained clearly on the last.. well, few posts. The fact that it all flies over your head is a personal issue between yourself and yourself.

Also your martian exmaple is not analgous, there SHOULD be evidence present on Mars that martians existed

Apologies, I didn't realise you'd explored mars. :bugeye:

Right so you admit it, nothing is considered evidence to you besides things like "well if one day God came down" or "well if you prayed and revived an amputee's leg"

Right? Basically anything realistically measurable, verifiable, etc...is not considered evidence to you, right?

Nothing has currently shown itself as being viable evidence to suggest the existence of any of the billions of gods, no. If you're trying to claim that a certain specific god exists then you'll have to do a tad better than 'a banana has a pull tab just like a coke can and thus was designed!'.

 

[VitalOne]

No, where was that said?

As I did say to you, it comes down to weight. ID doesn't have any when scrutinised, (indeed intelligent design has had to be renamed incompetent design). Of course we can debate the ins and outs of this claimed evidence but it still remains a giant leap away from worship, sacrifices, only eating certain foods, behaving in a certain sexual manner etc etc.

Science is naturalism, ID cannot be in BY DEFAULT

Not really, no. There is in fact none.

ROFL, do you enjoy lieing?

There's the anthropic principle, the problem of induction, the deisgn features in cells, etc...

Any man of reason that has looked at the claimed evidence would do the same. You've already told everyone here that theists are illogical, so why would anyone take them seriously?

However, what are you telling me exactly? That anything you claim is evidence must be accepted? Hmm...

If that's true why have many physicists, nobel prize winners, etc...admitted the immensely strong evidence for design?

For instance Paul Davies, a physicist list Intelligent Design as one of the eight possible explanations for the anthropic principle

You ONLY re-confirm what I said, atheism is 100% falsifiable, you never will believe in God because you don't want to believe in God, it has absolutely nothing to do with evidence and it never has, what it does have to do with is you enjoying being an atheist and ridiculing religion

 

[VitalOne]

You did catch me on this, I misspoke again. My mistake.

What I meant to say was, if they think the existence of God is unknown, and you ask them if God exists and they say any answer other than yes, then they're in a state of disbelief.

WTF? What's wrong with you, you take anything other than yes to automatically be atheism...

The spectrum IS NOT BLACK AND WHITE

Yes, No OR I don't know (unknown)

 

[ashura]

WTF? What's wrong with you, you take anything other than yes to automatically be atheism...

The spectrum IS NOT BLACK AND WHITE

Yes, No OR I don't know (unknown)

Vital, if one does not believe in something, they're in a state of disbelief. This is a fact. So yes, any answer other than yes IS atheism. One doesn't have to actively believe that God doesn't exist to be an atheist. If one simply doesn't have belief in God, that qualifies as well. Hence, strong vs weak.

 

[Varda]

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

Ambiogenesis is a theory that explains the gradual increase in the complexity of structures.
How can you say that RNA is completely different from amino acids, when they are MADE of amino acids (among other things)? the same process that creates one results in the other.
It is an explanation based on scientific methodology, that is being studied and that is progressing, and that offers a solution to the problem, rather than push it foward, like the alternatives does, and therefore much more suiting to less permissive intelects.

You say i have no knowledge of biology, while having NO knowledge of my academic background, and while you're the one being flamed by everyone else in the thread for your complete incapacity do understand very simple concepts. I think you are better off without the personal offenses, as you are indeed a very easy target.

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"

no, it's not. that is a terrible alegory.

ROFL, natural selection explains EVOLUTION not ABIOGENESIS

i thought you were refering to the "problem" of information, and not still in the anti-abiogenesis argument.

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

blindly? BLINDLY
may I remind you that the method being applied to the study of abiogenesis is the scientific method? it is the same method that allowed for us to know that certain chemical elements existed before they could have been evidenced, and is the same method that allows you to take a pill whenever you feel a discomfort and then fell the discomfort go away.

it is outrageous how easily a person can show such disdain for science while this person is able to sit confortably at home after a hot shower, type their insanities on a computer and foward them over the internet.

 

[VitalOne]

Explained clearly on the last.. well, few posts. The fact that it all flies over your head is a personal issue between yourself and yourself.

Yeah you explained it as "I don't believe in X since there's no evidence, so I also don't believe in God since there's no evidnece"

I asked you to clarify and all you did was give other examples ("I don't believe in Martians")

Apologies, I didn't realise you'd explored mars. :bugeye:

Uhm Robots have...

Nothing has currently shown itself as being viable evidence to suggest the existence of any of the billions of gods, no. If you're trying to claim that a certain specific god exists then you'll have to do a tad better than 'a banana has a pull tab just like a coke can and thus was designed!'.

ROFL, you can only show that an intelligent cause exists if you gain design that could not have arisen naturally

Who or what the intelligent cause is is unknown

 

[Varda]

Right so you admit it, nothing is considered evidence to you besides things like "well if one day God came down" or "well if you prayed and revived an amputee's leg"

Right? Basically anything realistically measurable, verifiable, etc...is not considered evidence to you, right?

where are these realistically measurable and verifiable evidences?

 

[VitalOne]

Vital, if one does not believe in something, they're in a state of disbelief. This is a fact. So yes, any answer other than yes IS atheism. One doesn't have to actively believe that God doesn't exist to be an atheist. If one simply doesn't have belief in God, that qualifies as well. Hence, strong vs weak.

ROFL....you're so funny

If one does not believe in something they are in the state of disbelief
If one does believe in something they are in the state of belief
If one does not believe nor disbelieve in something they are in neither belief nor disbelief

Looks like you must be blinded by the atheistic faith, it's not black and white, its not simply yes or no

 

[VitalOne]

Ambiogenesis is a theory that explains the gradual increase in the complexity of structures.
How can you say that RNA is completely different from amino acids, when they are MADE of amino acids (among other things)? the same process that creates one results in the other.
It is an explanation based on scientific methodology, that is being studied and that is progressing, and that offers a solution to the problem, rather than push it foward, like the alternatives does, and therefore much more suiting to less permissive intelects.

You say i have no knowledge of biology, while having NO knowledge of my academic background, and while you're the one being flamed by everyone else in the thread for your complete incapacity do understand very simple concepts. I think you are better off without the personal offenses, as you are indeed a very easy target.

Right...and if you knew anything about biology you would know that this is an unsupported theory, there's no empirical evidence supporting it ROFL, but all of a sudden the atheist no longer requires evidence to believe

Not even one of those supposed phases can be shown in labs, they simply speculate "well this must have happened, we don't need no f*** evidence, we know it COULD be true"

blindly? BLINDLY
may I remind you that the method being applied to the study of abiogenesis is the scientific method? it is the same method that allowed for us to know that certain chemical elements existed before they could have been evidenced, and is the same method that allows you to take a pill whenever you feel a discomfort and then fell the discomfort go away.

it is outrageous how easily a person can show such disdain for science while this person is able to sit confortably at home after a hot shower, type their insanities on a computer and foward them over the internet.

YES BLINDLY

In fact new geological findings tell us that the Earth was not what Miller or Urey thought at all, thereby setting us all the way back, it's no wonder a lot of biologists are favoring panspermia to explain it

 

[SnakeLord]

Science is naturalism, ID cannot be in BY DEFAULT

Its relevance to anything I said?

ROFL, do you enjoy lieing?

There's the anthropic principle, the problem of induction, the deisgn features in cells, etc...

All shown as worthless. What was it you said? Ah yes.. use google.

If that's true why have many physicists, nobel prize winners, etc...admitted the immensely strong evidence for design?

Because they're theists.

you never will believe in God because you don't want to believe in God

This statement is simple idiocy. It's not a choice. I can say that I personally don't care either way - I will manage perfectly well whether a god exists or not, however 'want' doesn't come into the question. Needless to say one cannot just sit down and squeeze themselves into belief of something they lack a belief in. If you think otherwise kindly accept my challenge and start believing in leprechauns, (you only need to do it for 5 minutes then you can go back to disbelief :bugeye: ).

Any joy vital? Did you somehow manage to get yourself to believe in leprechauns? Of course you didn't, you don't have a choice in the matter. If however you then saw a leprechaun you would believe in them regardless to what anyone else thought. There is no choice vital, take the time to understand that.

what it does have to do with is you enjoying being an atheist and ridiculing religion

More idiocy. I don't "enjoy" being an atheist anymore than I enjoy being a non-alchemist or non-astrologer, your statement is ludicrous. As for ridiculing religion.. I'd rather not have to - alas it exists and spreads it's idiocy everywhere it goes.

 

[ashura]

ROFL....you're so funny

If one does not believe in something they are in the state of disbelief
If one does believe in something they are in the state of belief
If one does not believe nor disbelieve in something they are in neither belief nor disbelief

Looks like you must be blinded by the atheistic faith, it's not black and white, its not simply yes or no

Vital, can you explain to me how the hell someone can not believe and not disbelieve at the same time when not believing is the very definition of disbelieving??

 

[VitalOne]

Its relevance to anything I said?

Uhm...its relevant because ID cannot be in science by definition

All shown as worthless. What was it you said? Ah yes.. use google.

Ofcourse it's worthless, ask for evidence, deny and reject evidence, then say there's no evidence (that I would accept)

All praise the great atheistic faith

Because they're theists.

Uhm...a lot of them were atheists before then became theists because of the evidence...I'm sure your great atheistic faith cannot handle this

This statement is simple idiocy. It's not a choice. I can say that I personally don't care either way - I will manage perfectly well whether a god exists or not, however 'want' doesn't come into the question. Needless to say one cannot just sit down and squeeze themselves into belief of something they lack a belief in. If you think otherwise kindly accept my challenge and start believing in leprechauns, (you only need to do it for 5 minutes then you can go back to disbelief :bugeye: ).

Any joy vital? Did you somehow manage to get yourself to believe in leprechauns? Of course you didn't, you don't have a choice in the matter. If however you then saw a leprechaun you would believe in them regardless to what anyone else thought. There is no choice vital, take the time to understand that.

More idiocy. I don't "enjoy" being an atheist anymore than I enjoy being a non-alchemist or non-astrologer, your statement is ludicrous. As for ridiculing religion.. I'd rather not have to - alas it exists and spreads it's idiocy everywhere it goes.

If this is true why do you use the atheistic strategy...ask for evidence, deny and reject evidence given, then say see there's no evidence (I would accept), then when asked so what would you consider to be evidence give very unrealistic things like "Well if one day God came down" or "Well if you revive an amputee's leg", otherwise if that evidence isn't provided I'll never believe nor CONSIDER any evidence given