VitalOne's Fallacious Rants Against Atheism

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

in the sense that the fact that something is absurd it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, ok

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"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 ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ah, well, I have been following some of his threads;

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!

 

Inflict what standard? Logic? Oh no I can't do that ROFL

Ofcourse it is, anything exposing atheism is a waste of time, anything favoring atheism is great and should be praised

Do what? I already said many times that both atheism AND theism are irrational

It's just a question, why don't you have any problems with atheists criticizing theism but only with threads critical of atheism?

Type of in "evidence of God" in google or youtube

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yes they have, Richard Dawkins uses them, is he considered a rationalist?

 

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

 

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

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

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

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)

Hmm...can you give me an example of what can be considered evidence that cannot be considered a "god of the gaps"?

ROFL, I disproved all your claims, nice try

Maybe you should try harder

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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

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

 

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.

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.

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.

Why bother? I'm going to reply "such as?" and will never ever receive a decent response from you.

Anyway.. such as?

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...?

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:

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?

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.

Why would it? Atheists don't say "god doesn't exist", they merely lack a belief in them.

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.

If you say so.

 

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?