VitalOne's Fallacious Rants Against Atheism

[SnakeLord]

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")

Incorrect, (again). I lack a belief in gods because of the lack of evidence to suggest they exist. I lack a belief in martians because of the lack of evidence to suggest they exist. They both might exist, one might or none might. Neither is contingent upon the other but both lack evidence to suggest they exist and thus have equal standing on my lack-of-beliefometer.

Uhm Robots have...

Umm.. Spirit and Opportunity have explored the equivalent of your back garden. A mere speck of dirt in the grand scheme of things. Even if they could ever manage to explore the entire surface it would still leave the possibility of an underground dwelling species or even a species that we don't even recognise as 'alive' that is actually alive.

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

And how do you establish what could or could not arise naturally?

 

[VitalOne]

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??

I already did...

belief means positive certainty that something is true
disbelief means positive certainty that something is false

Believing something is unknown is neither belief nor disbelief, there is no certainty that something is true or false

 

[ashura]

disbelief means positive certainty that something is false

And I've already told you that this isn't the only definition of disbelief:

dis·be·lief /ˌdɪsbɪˈlif/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[dis-bi-leef] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.

You can't have only the definition of disbelief you're using be the litmus test for whether someone is an atheist or not. There's another perfectly valid definition of disbelief that applies.

You're saying disability is only refusal. I'm saying it's both inability and refusal.

 

[USS Athens]

Atheism is entirely based off logical fallacies or false assumptions, no atheist has ever yet addressed these fallacies. It is also just the same as any other faith-based belief system.

argument from ignorance:
"There's no evidence God exists, so God doesn't exist"
"You can't prove God exists, so God cannot exist"
"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"

argument from personal incredulity:
"Do you really believe there's an invisible man, sky-daddy, etc...?"
"It sounds like religion is a fantasy, fictional, a myth, made up"

non-sequitur:
"Well I don't believe in Zeus, an Invisible Pink Unicorn, Santa Claus, etc...so God must not exist"
"I see no reason to believe in Thor, Zeus, Santa Claus, etc...so I see no reason to believe in God"
"I don't believe in Zeus, Thor, Santa Claus, etc...so I don't believe in God"
"There's no evidence Zeus, Santa Claus, the tooth-fairy, etc.., exists and there's also no evidence that God exists, so God must not exist"
"If God really existed, then there would be no more suffering in the world, only good things would happen"

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.

How do atheists account for these fallacies?

The reason Athiesm is irrational, is because we are here! Right now! At this very moment in time this very nanosecond! Our existance is just as unknown as our creator! We were created in this image. Why? That is as unknown as well! Why were we created this way? Why are we even here? Only God knows that. Athiests try to defy God when our existance is just as big of a mystery...

 

[VitalOne]

Incorrect, (again). I lack a belief in gods because of the lack of evidence to suggest they exist. I lack a belief in martians because of the lack of evidence to suggest they exist. They both might exist, one might or none might. Neither is contingent upon the other but both lack evidence to suggest they exist and thus have equal standing on my lack-of-beliefometer.

Right...so what's the point of bringing up martians? You never explained this, nor will you

"X doesn't exist because there is a lack of evidence, God must not also exist because there is a lack of evidence"

It's still a non-sequitur

Umm.. Spirit and Opportunity have explored the equivalent of your back garden. A mere speck of dirt in the grand scheme of things. Even if they could ever manage to explore the entire surface it would still leave the possibility of an underground dwelling species or even a species that we don't even recognise as 'alive' that is actually alive.

True there is still a possibility life exists, however the calculated conditions show it to be unlikely

And how do you establish what could or could not arise naturally?

Probability....

 

[VitalOne]

And I've already told you that this isn't the only definition of disbelief:

dis·be·lief /ˌdɪsbɪˈlif/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[dis-bi-leef] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.

You can't have only the definition of disbelief you're using be the litmus test for whether someone is an atheist or not. There's another perfectly valid definition of disbelief that applies.

You're saying disability is only refusal. I'm saying it's both inability and refusal.

Uhm...there's multiple definitions, clearly you being biased towards atheism favor one that favors atheism

But even using your definition, there still can be neither belief nor disbelief...

If you believe something is unknown then you neither believe nor refusel to believe

 

[SnakeLord]

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

O...k. who mentioned 'in science'? We were merely discussing what evidence if any existed to suggest that a certain entity existed.

Ofcourse it's worthless, ask for evidence, deny and reject evidence, then say there's no evidence

What are you saying to me? One must accept claims even when they're shit?

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

Do grow up a little.. please. I don't care what others do or do not believe in. I do not care who once believed something and then believed something else.. of what impact is that on my life other than a big fat zero? It's quite apparent that people from all walks of life do sometimes turn religious at certain stages after certain events in their lives. Whatever was your point?

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

1) It is standard practice to expect evidence before believing something to be true.

2) You could assert that the existence of clovers and holes in trees is evidence of the existence of leprechauns. This is not very good evidence though and thus wouldn't give instant rise to a belief in leprechauns. ID arguments are comparable to this, (but a snowflake is so beautiful it couldn't have happened by chance) - it is not evidence for the existence of anything other than an interesting looking snowflake. This evidence would be rejected.. because it's not really evidence, it's just crap.

3) Why would god coming down be considered by you as "unrealistic"? He has apparently done it before and I'm sure is quite capable of doing it again. So where's the problem? Also, considering this being is supposedly omnipotent, what's the problem with him making a limb grow back?

4) Everything is considered. Do not throw a girly fit if it isn't instantly accepted.

 

[ashura]

If you believe something is unknown then you neither believe nor refusel to believe

If you're not believing, but you're not refusing to believe, what are you? Unable to believe?

 

[SnakeLord]

Right...so what's the point of bringing up martians? You never explained this, nor will you

It's been explained. Many times now.

"X doesn't exist because there is a lack of evidence, God must not also exist because there is a lack of evidence"

It's still a non-sequitur

Where was any of that said? I never said anything didn't exist. Are you blind, stupid or a liar?

True there is still a possibility life exists, however the calculated conditions show it to be unlikely

What calculated conditions?

Probability....

Based upon what?

 

[VitalOne]

It's been explained. Many times now.

No you never explained it, you said you don't believe in Martians because of a lack of evidence and you don't believe in God because a lack of evidence, but you never explained the point of mentioning Martians, making it seem as if the existence of God has something to do with the existence of Martians...

Where was any of that said? I never said anything didn't exist. Are you blind, stupid or a liar?

Lacking belief is the same...unless you lack disbelief too

What calculated conditions?

You know the atmosphere and all that

Based upon what?

Based upon calculated chance...like the chance the Great Pyramids could've naturally formed

 

[VitalOne]

O...k. who mentioned 'in science'? We were merely discussing what evidence if any existed to suggest that a certain entity existed.

YOU did with ID and scrutiny

What are you saying to me? One must accept claims even when they're shit?

No, I'm saying you won't even consider any evidence, yet you ask for evidence, then deny and reject evidence, then say well see there's no evidence...

In other words your atheism is completely unfalsifiable..why are you even asking for evidence?

Do grow up a little.. please. I don't care what others do or do not believe in. I do not care who once believed something and then believed something else.. of what impact is that on my life other than a big fat zero? It's quite apparent that people from all walks of life do sometimes turn religious at certain stages after certain events in their lives. Whatever was your point?

ROFL...the point was that YOU said the only reason those physicists, nobel prize winners, and other reputable scientists say those things is because they're theists...THAT'S THE POINT

Clearly YOU do care, otherwise you wouldn't discredit scientists based upon religion, but rather upon the actual arguments, your bias is NAKED

1) It is standard practice to expect evidence before believing something to be true.

Ok....again an argument from ignorance ("something is false until proven true")

2) You could assert that the existence of clovers and holes in trees is evidence of the existence of leprechauns. This is not very good evidence though and thus wouldn't give instant rise to a belief in leprechauns. ID arguments are comparable to this, (but a snowflake is so beautiful it couldn't have happened by chance) - it is not evidence for the existence of anything other than an interesting looking snowflake. This evidence would be rejected.. because it's not really evidence, it's just crap.

No you couldn't, you must be retarded, let me explain this slowly...

To infer an intelligent cause you must show that something cannot arise naturally + has design features...if you show this then something is ALWAYS traced back an intelligent cause...

This isn't at all analogous to Clovers and Leprechauns, another typical non-sequitur

3) Why would god coming down be considered by you as "unrealistic"? He has apparently done it before and I'm sure is quite capable of doing it again. So where's the problem? Also, considering this being is supposedly omnipotent, what's the problem with him making a limb grow back?

Its not unrealistic, just unrealistic in our lifetime, it's a shame such a foolish notion has to be what would get you to believe...

Yeah God came down before, you know thousands of years ago

4) Everything is considered. Do not throw a girly fit if it isn't instantly accepted.

Girly fit? ROFL...yeah, I guess you're right, you just deny and reject any evidence, ask for evidence, then pretend as if you never given evidence

So in conclusion "I won't accept any amount of evidence except for God coming down and someone regrowing limbs, case closed, end of story"

Thanks

[EDIT] I think the moderators should the move me and SnakeLord's posts regarding evidence to the "What would convince you?" thread[/EDIT]

 

[scorpius]

I don't fault atheists for anything except for believing they're more rational and superior than everyone else

thye dont believe,they KNOW!!

 

[SnakeLord]

No you never explained it, you said you don't believe in Martians because of a lack of evidence and you don't believe in God because a lack of evidence, but you never explained the point of mentioning Martians

It's called a comparable analogy. I get the impression you feel that you and your gods are being victimised so I used a comparable analogy to highlight the simple point. That point being: I lack belief in that which has no evidence to suggest it exists. I most certainly do not then contend that it does not exist, I merely lack a belief in the positive assertion.

Lacking belief is the same...unless you lack disbelief too

Again, I do not assert that something does not exist, I merely lack a belief in it until appropriate evidence has been presented.

You know the atmosphere and all that

So ultimately martians must be just like us, (need our kind of atmosphere etc)? Why? Furthermore, they could be underground dwellers that have rigged some atmosphere proof habitat that was needed after some long since passed global disaster.

Based upon calculated chance...like the chance the Great Pyramids could've naturally formed

I see.

So let's say you have a basket of grapes. There is a 1 in 100 chance that a grape is bright blue. This means that if you have 1 grape in your basket, it's unlikely that it's going to be bright blue. However, what happens if you have 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 grapes in your basket? You'll most likely find gazillions of blue grapes. At this stage your whole 'calculated chance' speech falls out the window. So basically to work out this 'chance' you need a starting amount of something.

Let's say planets.. The chance of a planet being in the right place to harbor life is low, but wait.. how many planets exist? Without starting figures, the original statement to the impossibility of something occurring is meaningless.

As for pyramids:

The old Hoyles junkyard argument is fallacious for many reasons, not least of which is that it is generally arguing for an entity being slap bang fully formed to begin with. Instead what should be asked is if it is possible - given time, erosion and other factors, for a pyramid shaped structure to form naturally. The answer is yes, they can - as seen in pyramid shaped structures on mars, (unless one argues that martians did it). It is probably unlikely to happen too much, (on this planet at least), given the nature of weather/erosion but asking if a pyramid can just pop out of thin air would be worthless.

 

[SnakeLord]

YOU did with ID and scrutiny

Wait..

You claim ID is evidence of the existence of gods. I state that it doesn't offer anything tangible when srutinised to which you tell me ID can't be scrutinised while telling me I must accept it as true and if I don't it's because I'm an atheist and we don't accept any evidence as true.. Wow, that's some shit.

No, I'm saying you won't even consider any evidence

You're wrong. We have already established that I would consider people regrowing limbs as evidence - amongst other things. Apology accepted.

otherwise you wouldn't discredit scientists based upon religion, but rather upon the actual arguments, your bias is NAKED

I didn't discredit anyone, you asked me a simple question that I answered. It's unlikely you'll see an atheist pushing for ID, and yet much more likely that you'll see a theist pushing for ID - regardless to their occupation. Naked bias or just simple common sense?

Ok....again an argument from ignorance ("something is false until proven true")

Yes you are arguing from ignorance. Your statement in quotes is not what was said or implied.

To infer an intelligent cause you must show that something cannot arise naturally + has design features...

And.. where has anyone shown that something cannot arise naturally?

This isn't at all analogous to Clovers and Leprechauns

From an evidential standpoint it is. You keep making this fundamental mistake - thinking, (for some bizarre reason), that I am calling your god a leprechaun.

Its not unrealistic, just unrealistic in our lifetime

Why is it unrealistic in our lifetime? Does god have some personal objection to the early 2000's that I should know about?

it's a shame such a foolish notion has to be what would get you to believe...

Well, I certainly don't remember creating myself. Blame the designer heh :bugeye:

Yeah God came down before, you know thousands of years ago

Ok, I'll accept that. So then all these people thousands of years ago were not expected to just believe for the mere sake of it. No siree, they had first hand evidence to enable knowledge of this entities existence. Somehow it's good for them but if I ask I am being "unrealistic".

So in conclusion "I won't accept any amount of evidence except for God coming down and someone regrowing limbs, case closed, end of story"

Out of interest, what would it take to convince you that leprechauns exist (I know that they do, but how can I convince you)?

 

[ashura]

Moderator, why move the entire previous topic? There was a separate discussion going on about the validity of weak/agnostic atheism.

 

[SkinWalker]

Moderator's Note: Thread merged with similar thread of similar rants. VitalOne's trolling in the forum will only be tolerated to the point that his fallacious rants will be moved here. If anyone has issue with it, please PM me. Anti-science fanatics will henceforth be afforded little leeway here.

 

[VitalOne]

Wait..

You claim ID is evidence of the existence of gods. I state that it doesn't offer anything tangible when srutinised to which you tell me ID can't be scrutinised while telling me I must accept it as true and if I don't it's because I'm an atheist and we don't accept any evidence as true.. Wow, that's some shit.

I never said to accept it, and it can be scrutinized...

But don't critically scrutunize something like abiogenesis, that's horrible, only things favoring theism should be critically scrutinized

You're wrong. We have already established that I would consider people regrowing limbs as evidence - amongst other things. Apology accepted.

Yeah...you might as well say "when pigs fly" or "I juar sincerely do not want to ever believe in God or consider that God can exist"

You don't have to lie and pretend

I didn't discredit anyone, you asked me a simple question that I answered. It's unlikely you'll see an atheist pushing for ID, and yet much more likely that you'll see a theist pushing for ID - regardless to their occupation. Naked bias or just simple common sense?

Uhm...you said because "they're theists" so I told you there are also former atheists who become theist because of evidence and you get upset and say "yeah well I don't care, I don't understand how this has anything to do with the argument"

Yes you are arguing from ignorance. Your statement in quotes is not what was said or implied.

No I'm not, you're saying something is false until proven true or "I won't believe until there's evidence"

And.. where has anyone shown that something cannot arise naturally?

Well things like a computer can't arise naturally nor have the molecular machines in cells ever been shown to arise naturally

Tell me is there any instance where you would say "something must have designed and has intelligent cause"? I'm guessing no, never except in the case of things that you know mankind has made...

From an evidential standpoint it is. You keep making this fundamental mistake - thinking, (for some bizarre reason), that I am calling your god a leprechaun.

Well that's what you're saying, you're saying it's in the same weight

Why is it unrealistic in our lifetime? Does god have some personal objection to the early 2000's that I should know about?[/QUOTE
Well, its unpredictable, immeausrable, you can't gather it, there's no experiment, etc...it's not really even an example of actual "evidence", its just an event that happens

Well, I certainly don't remember creating myself. Blame the designer heh :bugeye:

Yeah, do you remember what you ate 2 years ago on this day? Oh you dno't? I guess it NEVER happened...since you can't remember it, obviously it indicates that it's just a delusion

Ok, I'll accept that. So then all these people thousands of years ago were not expected to just believe for the mere sake of it. No siree, they had first hand evidence to enable knowledge of this entities existence. Somehow it's good for them but if I ask I am being "unrealistic".

Yes! Exactly finally you understand what I'm saying

You see God doesn't really care

Out of interest, what would it take to convince you that leprechauns exist (I know that they do, but how can I convince you)?

Well that's easy, Leprechauns are supposed to be creatures that existed on an Island, so I would accept biological samples, fossils, the actual capturing of a Leprechaun, and other empirical evidence....

You see the difference? The examples I give are things that you can hypothetically gather if Leprechauns really do exist, the evidence you give me is things that just "happen"

 

[VitalOne]

Moderator's Note: Thread merged with similar thread of similar rants. VitalOne's trolling in the forum will only be tolerated to the point that his fallacious rants will be moved here. If anyone has issue with it, please PM me. Anti-science fanatics will henceforth be afforded little leeway here.

Why is this considered "trolling" but other topics criticizing theism not? Why do you let your personal bias control you? I didn't know pointing out logical fallacies of atheism is trolling...

Logical fallacies fit well in a science forum...I wonder why you have absolutely no problems with all the other innumerable threads critical of theism

 

[ashura]

If you believe something is unknown then you neither believe nor refusel to believe

If you're not believing, but you're not refusing to believe, what are you? Unable to believe?

Any answer Vital?

 

[VitalOne]

Any answer Vital?

You're neither believing nor refusing to believe...that's what you are, you neither accept something to be true nor refuse to accept it as true