VitalOne's Fallacious Rants Against Atheism

[greenberg]

Yes, I'm aware that this is his claim. However, I'm saying it's wrong. That's... sort of my entire argument.

It seems to me that you are trying to be objective, refusing to take into consideration what atheists, agnostics and theists themselves say about their belief, disbelief, lack of belief. VitalOne seems to be doing just the same.

I think an attempt at such objectivism, an attempt to take the issues in question out of their particular contexts, must inevitably lead to explanations that might seem adequate to you, but are inadequate in the eyes of atheists, agnostics and theists respectively.

What each of them implies by "belief" is worked out in their particular philosophies - and they differ from one another.

The options you mention aren't really options. If you ignore, you're not accepting. If you suspend, you're not accepting. If you're synthesizing, you're not really accepting either. And if you're redefining, you're certainly not accepting.

I say they are mutually exclusive, so they are separate options.

Not accepting is rejection. It's simply the degree of rejection that is changeable, not the fact that it's absolutely rejection.

I differentiate between the intention and the externally observable result.

If the externally observable result is that I don't accept something, this does not necessarily imply that my intention was to reject it.

For example, I don't own any Reebok running shoes, I have only Nike's and Adidas'. This is externally observable. But it doesn't imply anything about how this situation came to be, what intentions brought it about.

I do not hold it is adequate to make conclusions about intentions on the grounds of externally observable results.

 

[Zyxoas]

Hey. Who renamed this thread? That was cheeky...

 

[ashura]

It seems to me that you are trying to be objective, refusing to take into consideration what atheists, agnostics and theists themselves say about their belief, disbelief, lack of belief. VitalOne seems to be doing just the same.

I think an attempt at such objectivism, an attempt to take the issues in question out of their particular contexts, must inevitably lead to explanations that might seem adequate to you, but are inadequate in the eyes of atheists, agnostics and theists respectively.

What each of them implies by "belief" is worked out in their particular philosophies - and they differ from one another.

I say they are mutually exclusive, so they are separate options.


I differentiate between the intention and the externally observable result.

If the externally observable result is that I don't accept something, this does not necessarily imply that my intention was to reject it.

For example, I don't own any Reebok running shoes, I have only Nike's and Adidas'. This is externally observable. But it doesn't imply anything about how this situation came to be, what intentions brought it about.

I do not hold it is adequate to make conclusions about intentions on the grounds of externally observable results.

I'm afraid you're reading into something that doesn't exist. We're making absolutely zero conclusions about intentions.

In your particular example, all I would be saying is that you don't own any Reeboks. This would be considered true, regardless of why you have none, no? Similarly, I'm saying that someone who lacks belief in god is an atheist, regardless of why they have none, and that someone can't hold both neither belief nor disbelief towards god if they're aware of the concept. It would be similar to someone saying I neither have nor don't have Reeboks in my home. It's nonsensical.

 

[ashura]

I tried reading the whole thread but it got too painful after about 3 pages.

So VO, even if we take your stance that atheism and theism are equally illogical and flawed belief systems (which I disagree with but I will humor you), so why favor atheism over theism??

Occam's Razor. Voila.

He favors theism over atheism.

 

[Enmos]

He favors theism over atheism.

Yep, totally illogical too according to himself..

 

[ashura]

Yep, totally illogical too according to himself..

What he's saying is that at least he admits theism is illogical whereas atheists refuse to do the same. Not that I agree, of course.

 

[Enmos]

What he's saying is that at least he admits theism is illogical whereas atheists refuse to do the same. Not that I agree, of course.

Yeah, but if he admits it and thus knows it.. why the hell is he still theistic ? He should be agnostic.. :shrug:

 

[Jeff 152]

He favors theism over atheism.

I know, its fairly obvious isnt it? My statement was poorly worded I apologize. I meant that his stance is that atheism and theism are equally flawed, so he asks why should atheism be favored over theism. And my answer was that Occam's razor makes atheism the better answer.

 

[greenberg]

I'm afraid you're reading into something that doesn't exist. We're making absolutely zero conclusions about intentions.

You said:

Not accepting is rejection. It's simply the degree of rejection that is changeable, not the fact that it's absolutely rejection.

And to me, to say what you're saying above is to merge intentions and externally observable results into one.

Not accepting is rejection - that's what Jesus says in Matt. 12:30: He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.

Do you think this is a proper dichotomy?

In your particular example, all I would be saying is that you don't own any Reeboks. This would be considered true, regardless of why you have none, no?

Yes. But per your logic from earlier, I don't have Reeboks because I rejected them:
If I would have them, this would mean I had accepted them. If I wouldn't have them, this would mean I rejected them.

Similarly, I'm saying that someone who lacks belief in god is an atheist, regardless of why they have none, and that someone can't hold both neither belief nor disbelief towards god if they're aware of the concept.

Awareness of a concept does not automatically lead to or require accepting it or rejecting it.

It would be similar to someone saying I neither have nor don't have Reeboks in my home. It's nonsensical.

I can't pinpoint it right now, but I suspect you haven't formulated the analogy properly.

 

[snake river rufus]

Hey. Who renamed this thread? That was cheeky...

The moderator has joined all of VO's rants into one thread.

 

[ashura]

You said:

And to me, to say what you're saying above is to merge intentions and externally observable results into one.

Not accepting is rejection - that's what Jesus says in Matt. 12:30: He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.

Do you think this is a proper dichotomy?

In a sense, this is correct. Take for example if you ask someone "Do you believe in God?" and that someone says "I don't know." In that instance, he does not hold belief for God. Absence of belief, whether it be because of inability to believe or outright rejection, is disbelief. So in that moment, that person is an atheist.

Yes. But per your logic from earlier, I don't have Reeboks because I rejected them:
If I would have them, this would mean I had accepted them. If I wouldn't have them, this would mean I rejected them.

This doesn't follow my earlier logic because like I said, I'm not trying to infer any reasons. Here, you're inferring a reason behind your ownership, or lack of ownership. All I'm saying is, 1. You own Reeboks or 2. You don't own Reeboks. That's all. I'm viewing belief in the same way. I'm not looking for the reason why you don't believe. It doesn't matter to me why you choose not to believe. Simply the fact that you don't. And that's all that's required for one to be an atheist.

Awareness of a concept does not automatically lead to or require accepting it or rejecting it.

My mistake might have been using the word rejection. It's a little too active. How about just the term non-acceptance. So it's either you accept it, or you don't. So, in your particular case, all the "alternatives" (reject, ignore, synthesize, suspend, redefine) are all different degrees of not accepting. Are we getting closer to being on the same wavelength?

I can't pinpoint it right now, but I suspect you haven't formulated the analogy properly.

Once you pinpoint it, I'll be happy to talk about it. But as it stands, that analogy seems to describes Vital's views just fine.

 

[VitalOne]

I tried reading the whole thread but it got too painful after about 3 pages.

So VO, even if we take your stance that atheism and theism are equally illogical and flawed belief systems (which I disagree with but I will humor you), so why favor atheism over theism??

Occam's Razor. Voila.

Because of my personal experiences, I already stated this about a million times before

 

[VitalOne]

You are being blatantly dishonest by completely ignoring the method with which scientific knowledge evolves. You, sir, are a common, uneducated person. I advise you to research before you criticize.

there's a lot about abiogenesis that is unknown, but investigating the unknown is exactly what science is for! As you must know, science is not dogmatic, it is open to scrutiny... by criticizing abiogenesis, you are doing a favour to mankind, but by criticizing the scientific method, you are doing nothing but display extreme ignorance.

as long as the speculations on abiogenesis can be tested, they are scientific.. Like I have pointed out before, much scientific work has been done from a purely speculative starting point. The difference between scientific hypothesis and the designer hypothesis is that the second, is improbable, illogical, and most importantly cannot be subject of experimentation, and therefore has no absolute basis to be considered to be true.



I am not an atheist, and I demand evidence.



what about eigen, fox, wachtershauser, and even miller, among many others?



fuck you

Right, so you say I'm being dishonest yet you yourself know there is absolutely no empiricial evidence supporting ambiogenesis....so who's REALLY being dishonest?

I'm sure you and other atheists have no problem believing abiogeneisis, all of a sudden evidence is irrelevant

Abiogenesis is just one of many hypothesis which aim to solve the problem of the origin. You do realise that there is a critical difference between attempting to figure out a problem, other than simply calling it X, or designer, or god, right?

Right....you agree, any evidence of design is automatically a "god of the gaps"

Thanks again for re-confirming a supposed strawman

 

[Enmos]

Because of my personal experiences, I already stated this about a million times before

Are they illogical too ?
Because what do you think makes one atheist ? ..Yeah, personal experience that there isn't a God.

 

[VitalOne]

I know, its fairly obvious isnt it? My statement was poorly worded I apologize. I meant that his stance is that atheism and theism are equally flawed, so he asks why should atheism be favored over theism. And my answer was that Occam's razor makes atheism the better answer.

No it's because of my personal experiences, from my experiences I can tell you with 100% certainty that God, heaven, hell, aliens, spirits, ghosts, demons, etc...all exist

 

[ashura]

No, didn't forget it.

You said "inability to believe and disbelieve" which is the same thing as "Inability to believe and inability to disbelieve" and inability to believe is the definition of disbelief so you're basically saying "disbelief and the inability to disbelieve". So again I ask, you don't see a problem with this?

Hey Vital, hope you'll get some time to address this.

 

[VitalOne]

Are they illogical too ?
Because what do you think makes one atheist ? ..Yeah, personal experience that there isn't a God.

I don't understand your question...

But subjective experiences do not constitute as scientific evidence...

 

[VitalOne]

No, didn't forget it.

You said "inability to believe and disbelieve" which is the same thing as "Inability to believe and inability to disbelieve" and inability to believe is the definition of disbelief so you're basically saying "disbelief and the inability to disbelieve". So again I ask, you don't see a problem with this?

No, that's not the definition...

The "inability to believe and disbelieve" means the "inability to accept something as true and refuse to accept something as true"

 

[ashura]

No, that's not the definition...

The "inability to believe and disbelieve" means the "inability to accept something as true and refuse to accept something as true"

Let's take this step by step then, and see where you and I seem to split.

"Inability to believe and disbelieve" is the same thing as "Inability to believe and inability to disbelieve."

Yes?

 

[VitalOne]

Supposedly? You use the word 'supposedly' to try and prove a point?



Your definition of atheist is a straw man.



I don't have to believe in any of them to demostrate how belief in any other is fallacious, that is your error.



No you just aren't clever enough to understand the argument.

Woah, how useless, it's a shame you can't address anything

If you don't believe in a specific god, you are an atheist with respect to that deity. You cannot cop out and say you are an agnostic. Agnostics are atheists; Atheists are those not included in the subset of believers. Agnostics would not term themselves believers, so fall outside of the subset of people that are believers, same as atheists. Ergo, agnostics are technically atheists. That's logical proof that you use dishonest tactics in debate. YOU ARE AN ATHEIST.

ROFL...agnosticism is not atheism...it is not a cop out, its the TRUTH, agnostics do not identify themselves as atheists...agnosticism is not the same as atheism...

Why do you enjoy ignoring facts?