View Full Version : VitalOne's Fallacious Rants Against Atheism
VitalOne
11-03-07, 12:43 AM
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?
Devildriver_rocks
11-03-07, 01:13 AM
um atheism is not like that at all i'm assuming based on this thread that you are some sort of christian which is probably the most ilogical religion in the world god is along the same lines as a unicorn or a dragon he can't and never will exist some one would have had to create that deity to it doesn't fit
Saquist
11-03-07, 03:01 AM
Well I won't say that I haven't seen those arguments before Vital One. They're cliches at best. But while I find atheist irrational in their arguments against God I don't fault them for not believing in God.
There are many people across the world you come to the conclusion that there is no God for reasons that you can only sypathize with. Popular religion says that God takes his angels from the Earth, that our time is decided by destiny, that calamities occur against those who deserve it. So many people are raised with religions hypocritical superstitions that defy logic.
Most of atheist are just fighting back at this ugly situation religion has made for it'self and would prefer religion be wrapped up and take out. After all the tragedies in the name of God can we really take offensive? I would prefer not to.
Vitalone,
You are entirely correct with these conclusions concerning religions -
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.Just as you say It is also just the same as any other faith-based belief system – so you finally agree that religions (faith based belief systems) are entirely based off logical fallacies or false assumptions.
Anything that is unfalsifiable is just the same as any other faith-based belief.The conclusion you are making then is that atheist claims are useless just like your claims for religion.
Did you really mean to point out so clearly that you bellieve religion is irrational?
pjdude1219
11-03-07, 04:18 AM
Vitalone,
You are entirely correct with these conclusions concerning religions -
Just as you say It is also just the same as any other faith-based belief system – so you finally agree that religions (faith based belief systems) are entirely based off logical fallacies or false assumptions.
The conclusion you are making then is that atheist claims are useless just like your claims for religion.
Did you really mean to point out so clearly that you bellieve religion is irrational?
you had to go and poke the troll didn't you
snake river rufus
11-03-07, 04:26 AM
Vitalone,
You are entirely correct with these conclusions concerning religions -
Just as you say It is also just the same as any other faith-based belief system – so you finally agree that religions (faith based belief systems) are entirely based off logical fallacies or false assumptions.
The conclusion you are making then is that atheist claims are useless just like your claims for religion.
Did you really mean to point out so clearly that you bellieve religion is irrational?
Dude, try the 'ignore' button with this guy. Makes the reading go faster through the thread and you aren't missing anything logical or rational.;)
VitalOne
11-03-07, 08:05 AM
um atheism is not like that at all i'm assuming based on this thread that you are some sort of christian which is probably the most ilogical religion in the world god is along the same lines as a unicorn or a dragon he can't and never will exist some one would have had to create that deity to it doesn't fit
Yes it is, you didn't address any of the arguments at all, and you also make another assumption (anyone who criticizes atheism must be a Christian fundamentalist)
Next time try to actually explain instead of saying "oh you're just wrong"
Well I won't say that I haven't seen those arguments before Vital One. They're cliches at best. But while I find atheist irrational in their arguments against God I don't fault them for not believing in God.
There are many people across the world you come to the conclusion that there is no God for reasons that you can only sypathize with. Popular religion says that God takes his angels from the Earth, that our time is decided by destiny, that calamities occur against those who deserve it. So many people are raised with religions hypocritical superstitions that defy logic.
Most of atheist are just fighting back at this ugly situation religion has made for it'self and would prefer religion be wrapped up and take out. After all the tragedies in the name of God can we really take offensive? I would prefer not to.
I don't fault atheists for anything except for believing they're more rational and superior than everyone else
Vitalone,
You are entirely correct with these conclusions concerning religions -
Just as you say It is also just the same as any other faith-based belief system – so you finally agree that religions (faith based belief systems) are entirely based off logical fallacies or false assumptions.
The conclusion you are making then is that atheist claims are useless just like your claims for religion.
Did you really mean to point out so clearly that you bellieve religion is irrational?
I wish you could address the arguments, atheists constantly say atheism doesn't require faith, also theists never deny that theism is faith based at all, only atheists do
Also I've repeatedly stated that theism and atheism are BOTH irrational, you see I can handle it unlike atheists
Dude, try the 'ignore' button with this guy. Makes the reading go faster through the thread and you aren't missing anything logical or rational.;)
I agree, since you can't address the argument, ignore the whole situation, pretend like it never happened, give up, go home and just ignore everything
pjdude1219
11-03-07, 08:15 AM
Yes it is, you didn't address any of the arguments at all, and you also make another assumption (anyone who criticizes atheism must be a Christian fundamentalist)
Next time try to actually explain instead of saying "oh you're just wrong"
I don't fault atheists for anything except for believing they're more rational and superior than everyone else
I wish you could address the arguments, atheists constantly say atheism doesn't require faith, also theists never deny that theism is faith based at all, only atheists do
Also I've repeatedly stated that theism and atheism are BOTH irrational, you see I can handle it unlike atheists
I agree, since you can't address the argument, ignore the whole situation, pretend like it never happened, give up, go home and just ignore everything
why is it you wish to inflict a standard upon people without following said standard yourself
This thread is a waste of webspace!!!
Orleander
11-03-07, 08:22 AM
...I don't fault atheists for anything except for believing they're more rational and superior than everyone else...
That's not fair. You do that too.
Spud Emperor
11-03-07, 08:24 AM
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!
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.
:bugeye:
what evidence?
phlogistician
11-03-07, 08:34 AM
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!
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?
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 ?
..unless you are arrogant..
You don't know him yet, do you ? lol
non-sequitur:
"Well I don't believe in Zeus, an Invisible Pink Unicorn, Santa Claus, etc...so God must not exist"
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?
"If God really existed, then there would be no more suffering in the world, only good things would happen"
either that or god does not listen to prayers
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"
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!
pjdude1219
11-03-07, 08:46 AM
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!
he is correct it is a logical fallacy one he is ever so fond of falling prey to
argument from ignorance:
"Only what the current evidence at the present time indicates is the truth"
evidence indicates the truth...
once again, how is that a fallacy?
SnakeLord
11-03-07, 08:48 AM
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"
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.
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"
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.
non-sequitur:
"Well I don't believe in Zeus, an Invisible Pink Unicorn, Santa Claus, etc...so God must not exist"
"If God really existed, then there would be no more suffering in the world, only good things would happen"
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. 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).
Why don't you believe in leprechauns? Complete lack of evidence right? Voila.
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.
Incorrect. Simply show one instance of a god's existence and the lack of belief in that god is falsified. Capiche?
How do atheists account for these fallacies?
The original claimant not being all that intelligent. Back to the drawing board with you.
SkinWalker
11-03-07, 08:49 AM
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.
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
:rolleyes:
"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
11-03-07, 10:44 AM
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
11-03-07, 11:56 AM
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
11-03-07, 12:00 PM
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
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
11-03-07, 12:34 PM
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
i guess we can rule that last one out, then
VitalOne
11-03-07, 12:39 PM
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
11-03-07, 12:52 PM
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
11-03-07, 12:53 PM
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
11-03-07, 01:13 PM
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
11-03-07, 01:28 PM
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
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.
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.
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?
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
11-03-07, 02:36 PM
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
11-03-07, 04:31 PM
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?
VitalOne
11-03-07, 04:37 PM
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?
Ah, I see "why explain when I can just say stuff, case closed"
VitalOne
11-03-07, 04:38 PM
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.
ROFL
Yeah if I wanted to be foolish I could say I'm a weak atheist towards them as well as say I'm a weak theist towards them...but if you don't want to be foolish you could say you're agnostic, since it's the more correct term
VitalOne
11-03-07, 04:41 PM
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?
hahaha
You used another logical fallacy to justify a logical fallacy, "if there was really evidence we wouldn't be having this discussion"
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
Hmm...so what's your point?
The supposed "laws of physics" have changed as science has progressed...
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
Again...how does this have to do with anything?
Typical atheist, ask for evidence, deny and reject evidence, then refuse to give an example of evidence, and say "see there's no evidence"
ROFL
Yeah if I wanted to be foolish I could say I'm a weak atheist towards them as well as say I'm a weak theist towards them...but if you don't want to be foolish you could say you're agnostic, since it's the more correct term
The most correct term would agnostic atheist actually, as the reason you're an atheist is because of agnosticism. Welcome to the atheist club VitalOne.
VitalOne
11-03-07, 04:44 PM
The most correct term would agnostic atheist actually, as the reason you're an atheist is because of agnosticism. Welcome to the atheist club VitalOne.
ROFL
There's no point in saying "agnostic atheist" because if you're an "agnostic atheist" you're also an "agnostic theist"
ROFL at you're atheistic tactics, you're just like Richard Dawkins, try every imaginable tactic in order to trick and decieve others into believing your senseless propaganda
Crunchy Cat
11-03-07, 04:52 PM
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?
Ah, I see "why explain when I can just say stuff, case closed"
If you don't value paraphrasing and identifying misinterpretation then I don't know if anyone can help you understand as your posting history indicates that all traditional methods of communication have failed. Maybe some better questions to ask are:
A) Do you value correctly understanding atheism?
B) Do you value learning?
C) Do you value truth over your own pride?
ROFL
There's no point in saying "agnostic atheist" because if you're an "agnostic atheist" you're also an "agnostic theist"
ROFL at you're atheistic tactics, you're just like Richard Dawkins, try every imaginable tactic in order to trick and decieve others into believing your senseless propaganda
Wrong. An agnostic theist claims that there's no proof of God but believes in God in spite of that. An agnostic atheist also claims that there's no proof of God but uses that as the reason for his/her lack of belief.
There's a fundamental difference between the two and only someone ignorant of what the two really mean would claim that they're the same.
VitalOne
11-03-07, 05:01 PM
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.
I don't know what you're talking about...
Weak atheists are really agnostics who pretend to be atheists, they so WANT to claim atheism that they have to pretend to be, when they're not by definition
A "weak atheist" is also a "weak theist", its such a foolish notion...
Also when you say "I lack the belief" it is not implied that you also lack disbelief, atheists enjoy conveniently leaving that out just in order to preserve the atheistic faith
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.
You implied it right here:
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 can dismiss things based upon pure personal incredulity + ignorance
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.
How is it a strawman if you agree that you use it?
Why bother? I'm going to reply "such as?" and will never ever receive a decent response from you.
Anyway.. such as?
I've already provided lots, like I said just type in "evidence of god" in google or youtube, I'm not going to change the thread topic for you
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...?
Again, why are you changing the subject?
Thanks for re-confirming the non-sequitur logic, "if not A, then not B" or "if not FSM or Santa Claus, then not God"
And it's a strawman right? (ROFL)
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:
Again WHY DO YOU KEEP USING THIS NON-SEQUITUR ARGUMENT?
Let me explain this so that even you can understand...
The existence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster, Thor, Zeus, Leprechauns, Santa Claus, or whatever BS you can think of HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
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?
Actually the Leprechaun myth was about a physical leprechaun existing on an Island....other versions of leprechauns that are truly unverifiable I am 100% agnostic to...
Again WHY DO YOU CONTINUE WITH THIS NON-SEQUITUR?
What if I said "oh well you know you don't believe in the geocentric theory, so wny do you consider that other theories can be true? They're both theories, the differences between them are irrevelant"
This is the same type of argument
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.
Yes they do, they say it all the time, they make seem as if the existence of God really has something to do with the existence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster...
Its still matches the EXACT PRECISE definition of a non-sequitur
"If not A, then not B"
"If you don't believe in A, then you don't believe in B"
"If you don't believe in a FSM, then you don't believe in God?"
Why would it? Atheists don't say "god doesn't exist", they merely lack a belief in them.
Yes they do...except for weak atheists, which are just weak theists, which are just agnostics
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.
Yeah , prayer IS a "god of the gaps", the atheist will say "so what if you've proven you can make things happen by your will, it doesn't prove a God-figure exists, its a 'god of the gaps',you're filling in the gaps with God and pretending it's evidence"
shichimenshyo
11-03-07, 05:04 PM
So hows turnng spider into a theist by praying working out for you?....just wondering
VitalOne
11-03-07, 05:04 PM
Wrong. An agnostic theist claims that there's no proof of God but believes in God in spite of that. An agnostic atheist also claims that there's no proof of God but uses that as the reason for his/her lack of belief.
There's a fundamental difference between the two and only someone ignorant of what the two really mean would claim that they're the same.
Oh well if that's the case then I'd BE NEITHER, I would just be plain agnostic..."I lack belief and disbelief"
You just admitted that agnostic atheism is really just atheism and that agnostic theism is really just theism
So your a weak atheist, that means you have disbelief in God?
hahaha
You used another logical fallacy to justify a logical fallacy, "if there was really evidence we wouldn't be having this discussion"
You wrote in your first post that there are evidences for theism. I am saying that there isn't. And I am saying that if evidenced could stand a logical trial, there would possibly be very few atheists left.
Hmm...so what's your point?
The supposed "laws of physics" have changed as science has progressed...
exactly, there was a time when mystical explanations were necessary. we don't need these anymore, we can use our knowledge to theorise things that "make sense" now
Typical atheist, ask for evidence, deny and reject evidence, then refuse to give an example of evidence, and say "see there's no evidence"
[/quote]
i refute evidence which is not up to my standards of reason. I'll give you an example of evidence that would work for me, out of a dawkings book, which i think he took from darwin: find us an example of irreductible complexity in nature, something of which none of the separate components could have been useful separately
Oh well if that's the case then I'd BE NEITHER, I would just be plain agnostic..."I lack belief and disbelief"
You just admitted that agnostic atheism is really just atheism and that agnostic theism is really just theism
So your a weak atheist, that means you have disbelief in God?
You're confused VitalOne, an agnostic isn't one who lacks belief and disbelief (such a concept can't exist). It's simply someone who claims that the existence of god is unknowable. Here's the definition:
ag·nos·tic /ægˈnɒstɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ag-nos-tik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
It's from that position, that we can't know if God is real or not, that you derive your mindset. You either believe in spite of knowing such a thing, (agnostic theism), or you don't believe because you have nothing to base your belief on (agnostic atheist).
And you can't simply say "just atheism" or "just theism". The reasoning for why someone ends up being one or the other is what distinguishes between labels like strong and weak. Instead of lumping everything into black and white, try to see the shades of gray that exist for both atheism and theism.
EDIT: An example of a non-agnostic theist is one who claims that he/she DOES in fact know that God exists. A non-agnostic atheist is one who says he/she does in fact know that God doesn't exist.
VitalOne
11-03-07, 05:18 PM
You wrote in your first post that there are evidences for theism. I am saying that there isn't. And I am saying that if evidenced could stand a logical trial, there would possibly be very few atheists left.
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
exactly, there was a time when mystical explanations were necessary. we don't need these anymore, we can use our knowledge to theorise things that "make sense" now
What? You just completely changed the subject and made it appear as if you were addressing something...
i refute evidence which is not up to my standards of reason. I'll give you an example of evidence that would work for me, out of a dawkings book, which i think he took from darwin: find us an example of irreductible complexity in nature, something of which none of the separate components could have been useful separately
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"
There is no proven natural explanation for genetic information
VitalOne
11-03-07, 05:22 PM
You're confused VitalOne, an agnostic isn't one who lacks belief and disbelief (such a concept can't exist). It's simply someone who claims that the existence of god is unknowable. Here's the definition:
ag·nos·tic /ægˈnɒstɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ag-nos-tik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
No you're the confused one, if someone lacks belief and disbelief they are BEST described as agnostic, not as atheistic nor theistic
These little atheists like you enjoy pretending that you neither believe nor disbelieve then you're a "weak atheist"
It's from that position, that we can't know if God is real or not, that you derive your mindset. You either believe in spite of knowing such a thing, (agnostic theism), or you don't believe because you have nothing to base your belief on (agnostic atheist).
And you can't simply say "just atheism" or "just theism". The reasoning for why someone ends up being one or the other is what distinguishes between labels like strong and weak. Instead of lumping everything into black and white, try to see the shades of gray that exist for both atheism and theism.
EDIT: An example of a non-agnostic theist is one who claims that he/she DOES in fact know that God exists. A non-agnostic atheist is one who says he/she does in fact know that God doesn't exist.
Right, so according to YOU YOUR OWNSELF I would neither be atheistic nor theistic. You can simply say "just theism" or "just atheism" in the broader sense of the word...
Also you just contradicted yourself, now you're saying atheists do say that God doesn't exist...
What are you? If you're a weak theist, then you "lack disbelief in God" if you're a weak atheist then "you lack belief in God"
I'll make a new thread regarding this confusion since it's going off topic
shichimenshyo
11-03-07, 05:25 PM
No but seriously...Spidergoat is a theist now right? because I'm pretty sure you told us if you prayed he would become one. I was also sure that several of us said that that would give us undeniable proof that god did in fact exist...you made good on your promise of proof right?
No you're the confused one, if someone lacks belief and disbelief they are BEST described as agnostic, not as atheistic nor theistic
These little atheists like you enjoy pretending that you neither believe nor disbelieve then you're a "weak atheist"
Right, so according to YOU YOUR OWNSELF I would neither be atheistic nor theistic. You can simply say "just theism" or "just atheism" in the broader sense of the word...
Also you just contradicted yourself, now you're saying atheists do say that God doesn't exist...
What are you? If you're a weak theist, then you "lack disbelief in God" if you're a weak atheist then "you lack belief in God"
I'll make a new thread regarding this confusion since it's going off topic
I'll address your questions in the new thread then.
VitalOne
11-03-07, 05:27 PM
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?
VitalOne
11-03-07, 05:29 PM
God, you're an imbecile!
Yeah, its great
No but seriously...Spidergoat is a theist now right? because I'm pretty sure you told us if you prayed he would become one. I was also sure that several of us said that that would give us undeniable proof that god did in fact exist...you made good on your promise of proof right?
Actually I still didn't try the manifestation yet...
shichimenshyo
11-03-07, 05:31 PM
Yeah, its great
Actually I still didn't try the manifestation yet...
Why not? Im willing to bet that you will never get around to it Vital, youll just "happen" to forget to until noone remembers it, because the truth is your afraid.
VitalOne
11-03-07, 05:33 PM
Why not? Im willing to bet that you will never get around to it Vital, youll just "happen" to forget to until noone remembers it, because the truth is your afraid.
I'll get around to it...but AFTER IT WORKS (remember if I do it correctly I have a 100% chance of success)
Atheists will have brand new excuses:
- They must just be pretending they believe, they really don't
- If they really are theists now then it's just a causeless coincidence, like how people pray and sometimes things come true, just causeless chance
- You must have used some type of psychological mind trick to get them to become theists
You see atheism is unfalsifiable, atheists ALWAYS have a way out
To answer the questions you asked in the other thread:
No you're the confused one, if someone lacks belief and disbelief they are BEST described as agnostic, not as atheistic nor theistic
Vital, one can't lack both belief and disbelief. Lacking belief is considered a state of disbelief. It's one or the other.
Agnostic is simply someone who claims that knowledge of God's existence is unknowable. An agnostic theist is someone who, in spite of this, still chooses to believe in God. An agnostic atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God because he can't know if God does or doesn't exist.
Right, so according to YOU YOUR OWNSELF I would neither be atheistic nor theistic. You can simply say "just theism" or "just atheism" in the broader sense of the word...
What're you talking about? You believe in God don't you? So you're certainly a theist. What I mentioned before was that you choose to not believe in the other gods out there, and that's exactly what atheists indiscriminately do for ALL gods. Hence the similarity between you and atheists.
Also you just contradicted yourself, now you're saying atheists do say that God doesn't exist...
I'm saying non-agnostic atheists say God doesn't exist. An agnostic atheist would say I can't know whether God does or doesn't exist, which is why I can't have any belief in it.
What are you? If you're a weak theist, then you "lack disbelief in God" if you're a weak atheist then "you lack belief in God"
I'm agnostic atheist. Let's stop the doublespeak.
1. Lack of disbelief = belief.
2. Lack of belief = disbelief.
And no one can lack both belief and disbelief.
greenberg
11-03-07, 05:38 PM
What's the difference and why do weak atheists distinguish themselves from agnostics if they neither believe nor disbelieve?
You mean that the end result of both weak atheism and agnosticism is in effect the same, so why distinguish between them?
I think that's because they have arrived at their positions in different ways.
Atheists take the path of evidence and then make conclusions based on either presence or lack of evidence.
Agnostics hold the stance that evidence can never be conclusive.
Atheists rely on evidence, agnostics don't.
Atheists rely on evidence, agnostics don't.
Agnostic atheists rely on lack of evidence to arrive at their disbelief of God.
Agnostic theists, in spite of the lack of evidence, arrive at their belief in God.
Agnostic is not a position that determines belief or disbelief.
VitalOne
11-03-07, 05:44 PM
To answer the questions you asked in the other thread:
Vital, one can't lack both belief and disbelief. Lacking belief is considered a state of disbelief. It's one or the other.
Yes they can, if you neither believe nor disbelieve then you lack belief and disbelief...like you don't believe God exists, but you don't disbelieve God exists, or you don't believe God does exists nor that God does not exist
Agnostic is simply someone who claims that knowledge of God's existence is unknowable. An agnostic theist is someone who, in spite of this, still chooses to believe in God. An agnostic atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God because he can't know if God does or doesn't exist.
Right...
So if you...
"believe the existence of God is unknowable" then you "neither believe nor disbelieve in God"
I'm agnostic atheist. Let's stop the doublespeak.
1. Lack of disbelief = belief.
2. Lack of belief = disbelief.
And no one can lack both belief and disbelief.
Right, so if you neither believe nor disbelieve then you're agnostic..or "weak atheist"?
For instance if I believe the existence of God is unknown then I neither believe nor disbelieve
VitalOne
11-03-07, 05:46 PM
You mean that the end result of both weak atheism and agnosticism is in effect the same, so why distinguish between them?
I think that's because they have arrived at their positions in different ways.
Atheists take the path of evidence and then make conclusions based on either presence or lack of evidence.
Agnostics hold the stance that evidence can never be conclusive.
Atheists rely on evidence, agnostics don't.
So why have the word weak atheists?
How can atheists rely on evidence if the existence of God is unverifiable? This statement doesn't make any type of sense
Agnostic atheists rely on lack of evidence to arrive at their disbelief of God.
Agnostic theists, in spite of the lack of evidence, arrive at their belief in God.
Agnostic is not a position that determines belief or disbelief.
It depends on which definition you use...
Agnostic theists say "I don't know, but I think so"
Agnostic atheists say "I don't know, but I don't think so"
So NEITHER relies on evidence, just pure untouched personal incredulity (faith), atheists enjoy proclaiming the supremacy of atheism by saying atheism relies on evidence
greenberg
11-03-07, 05:47 PM
Vital, one can't lack both belief and disbelief.
Yes, one can. A small child who has never seen a comet and has no idea what a comet is, can be said to lack both belief about comets as well as lack disbelief about comets. The word "comet" carries no associations in his mind.
But such a state is possible to reach also as an adult, where one disassociates (ie. severs attachment) between objects and notions (ideas) of them.
This is when, for example, the word "God" or "table" don't automatically trigger any associations anymore.
"believe the existence of God is unknowable" then you "neither believe nor disbelieve in God"
That's the crux of the problem. The former does not equal the latter.
Take this as an example. I ask you if you believe in Santa. You certainly can't prove that Santa doesn't exist, but you can't prove he does exist either. Thus, his existence is unknowable. But your answer would still be no, I don't believe in Santa. Why? Because the lack of evidence gives you no reason to believe otherwise. That's an agnostic atheist if you replace Santa with God.
If you'd said yes, you do believe in Santa in spite of having no evidence, that would make you an agnostic theist if you replace Santa with God.
VitalOne
11-03-07, 05:54 PM
That's the crux of the problem. The former does not equal the latter.
Take this as an example. I ask you if you believe in Santa. You certainly can't prove that Santa doesn't exist, but you can't prove he does exist either. Thus, his existence is unknowable. But your answer would still be no, I don't believe in Santa. Why? Because the lack of evidence gives you no reason to believe otherwise. That's an agnostic atheist if you replace Santa with God.
If you'd said yes, you do believe in Santa in spite of having no evidence, that would make you an agnostic theist if you replace Santa with God.
No, that's not true...
The absence of evidence when evidence SHOULD BE PRESENT makes the existence unlikely...otherwise you're just using an argument from ignorance (fallacy)
God and Santa Claus are not analogous, Santa Claus does not exist because there should be evidence that he exists, but there is no evidence present (evidence of absence), where as in the case of God there should NOT be evidence present, and there isn't any (direct) evidence present
The former does equal the latter, if you "believe the existence of Santa Claus is unknown" then you neither believe nor disbelieve, if you "Believe it's unknowable, but still don't believe", then you simply don't believe
Yes, one can. A small child who has never seen a comet and has no idea what a comet is, can be said to lack both belief about comets as well as lack disbelief about comets. The word "comet" carries no associations in his mind.
But such a state is possible to reach also as an adult, where one disassociates (ie. severs attachment) between objects and notions (ideas) of them.
This is when, for example, the word "God" or "table" don't automatically trigger any associations anymore.
I'd give your example merit but it doesn't truly apply. The child has no concept of the comet. That's quite different from what Vital is suggesting, which is one being aware of the concept of God and still lacking belief and disbelief. In that instance, such a stance is impossible.
greenberg
11-03-07, 05:56 PM
So why have the word weak atheists?
Like I said - one possible reason for this is because they have arrived at their positions in different ways, by using different methodologies.
How can atheists rely on evidence if the existence of God is unverifiable?
In this pair of atheists and agnostics, only strong agnostics think that the existence of God is unverifiable, that it is not subject to verification.
Atheists think that the existence of God is subject to verification.
You've mixed up the atheist and the agnostic stance.
VitalOne
11-03-07, 05:56 PM
I'd give your example merit but it doesn't truly apply. The child has no concept of the comet. That's quite different from what Vital is suggesting, which is one being aware of the concept of God and still lacking belief and disbelief. In that instance, such a stance is impossible.
No it's not...if you believe the existence of God is unknown then you neither believe nor disbelieve, because it's unknown
VitalOne
11-03-07, 05:57 PM
Like I said - one possible reason for this is because they have arrived at their positions in different ways, by using different methodologies.
What's the difference again?
In this pair of atheists and agnostics, only strong agnostics think that the existence of God is unverifiable, that it is not subject to verification.
Atheists think that the existence of God is subject to verification.
You've mixed up the atheist and the agnostic stance.
What? So how do weak atheists use evidence again? By saying "I see no evidence when there shouldn't be evidence present" (argument from ignorance)
greenberg
11-03-07, 05:57 PM
I'd give your example merit but it doesn't truly apply. The child has no concept of the comet. That's quite different from what Vital is suggesting, which is one being aware of the concept of God and still lacking belief and disbelief. In that instance, such a stance is impossible.
Not according to Buddhism, as far as I know.
And as far as I know, VitalOne has some Buddhist inclination.
Not according to Buddhism, as far as I know.
And as far as I know, VitalOne has some Buddhist inclination.
Would you mind elaborating?
The former does equal the latter, if you "believe the existence of Santa Claus is unknown" then you neither believe nor disbelieve, if you "Believe it's unknowable, but still don't believe", then you simply don't believe
Again, if you believe the existence of Santa is unknown, that's not an indication of your belief in his existence. If I asked you, do you believe in Santa in that situation, and you said anything other than yes, you're in a state of disbelief.
VitalOne
11-03-07, 06:04 PM
Again, if you believe the existence of Santa is unknown, that's not an indication of your belief in his existence. If I asked you, do you believe in Santa in that situation, and you said I don't know, that answer also states that you don't believe in Santa because you didn't say yes. That puts you in a state of disbelief.
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...
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...
I realized my wording was poor which is why I edited my post before your reply. Would you mind responding to the fixed version?
greenberg
11-03-07, 06:15 PM
"believe the existence of God is unknowable" then you "neither believe nor disbelieve in God"
This seems to follow, yes, but I don't think it actually does.
To truly neither believe nor disbelieve requires that one has no stance about whether God is knowable or not.
Both agnostics and atheists have a stance on whether God is knowable or not.
Agnostics hold that God is not knowable.
Atheists hold that God is knowable, ie. that God is a phenomenon of the category that can be known (which, however, does not imply that it is known!). If they wouldn't hold that, they couldn't seek evidence for or against the existence of God.
SnakeLord
11-03-07, 06:16 PM
Weak atheists are really agnostics who pretend to be atheists
Incorrect.
Agnosticism is to do with whether one can ultimately know whether a god exists or not. Weak atheism on the other hand is simply a lack of belief in gods.
Kindly take the time to absorb this information. Doing so will prevent us from having to go through this time and time again.
A "weak atheist" is also a "weak theist", its such a foolish notion...
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?
Also when you say "I lack the belief" it is not implied that you also lack disbelief, atheists enjoy conveniently leaving that out just in order to preserve the atheistic faith
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 implied it right here:
“ Originally Posted by SnakeLord
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 can dismiss things based upon pure personal incredulity + ignorance
How so? Tell me vital one, how has anything been dismissed when my very sentence started with "they might exist"? Well? Hello?
How is it a strawman if you agree that you use it?
What?
I've already provided lots, like I said just type in "evidence of god" in google or youtube
I did just that, I found none. Next?
Again, why are you changing the subject?
Thanks for re-confirming the non-sequitur logic, "if not A, then not B" or "if not FSM or Santa Claus, then not God"
What?
The existence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster, Thor, Zeus, Leprechauns, Santa Claus, or whatever BS you can think of HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
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..
"You can't compare a god to a god.. THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER" :bugeye:
other versions of leprechauns that are truly unverifiable I am 100% agnostic to...
So you question whether one can ultimately know whether a leprechaun exists or not?
What if I said "oh well you know you don't believe in the geocentric theory, so wny do you consider that other theories can be true? They're both theories, the differences between them are irrevelant"
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?
"If not A, then not B"
"If you don't believe in A, then you don't believe in B"
"If you don't believe in a FSM, then you don't believe in God?"
But this is not the argument lol. Come on, how many times need it be explained to you?
Yes they do...except for weak atheists, which are just weak theists, which are just agnostics
Incorrect. Agnostics and atheists are different things.
Yeah , prayer IS a "god of the gaps", the atheist will say "so what if you've proven you can make things happen by your will, it doesn't prove a God-figure exists, its a 'god of the gaps',you're filling in the gaps with God and pretending it's evidence"
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.
SnakeLord
11-03-07, 06:26 PM
So how do weak atheists use evidence again? By saying "I see no evidence when there shouldn't be evidence present"
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).
greenberg
11-03-07, 06:33 PM
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.
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
11-03-07, 06:49 PM
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
11-03-07, 07:06 PM
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
11-03-07, 07:10 PM
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
11-03-07, 07:13 PM
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
MZ3Boy84
11-03-07, 07:15 PM
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
11-03-07, 07:18 PM
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
11-03-07, 07:22 PM
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
MZ3Boy84
11-03-07, 07:29 PM
You're not the coach, GTFO
I can play that game... STFU. :)
MZ3Boy84
11-03-07, 07:33 PM
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
11-03-07, 07:34 PM
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
11-03-07, 07:37 PM
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
11-03-07, 07:50 PM
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.
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. :cool:
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.
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
11-03-07, 08:10 PM
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. :cool:
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
11-03-07, 08:11 PM
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
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?
SnakeLord
11-03-07, 08:12 PM
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.
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
11-03-07, 08:16 PM
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
11-03-07, 08:20 PM
By believing the existence is unknown, they're in a state of disbelief!
No they're not :rolleyes: 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
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
11-03-07, 08:21 PM
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
11-03-07, 08:22 PM
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?
No they're not :rolleyes: 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
11-03-07, 08:24 PM
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
11-03-07, 08:25 PM
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
11-03-07, 08:26 PM
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)
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.
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.