VitalOne's Fallacious Rants Against Atheism

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

Right...

So if you...

"believe the existence of God is unknowable" then you "neither believe nor disbelieve in God"

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

 

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

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

Like I said - one possible reason for this is because they have arrived at their positions in different ways, by using different methodologies.

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.

 

No it's not...if you believe the existence of God is unknown then you neither believe nor disbelieve, because it's unknown

 

What's the difference again?

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)

 

Not according to Buddhism, as far as I know.
And as far as I know, VitalOne has some Buddhist inclination.

 

Would you mind elaborating?

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

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?

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.

How so? Tell me vital one, how has anything been dismissed when my very sentence started with "they might exist"? Well? Hello?

What?

I did just that, I found none. Next?

What?

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:

So you question whether one can ultimately know whether a leprechaun exists or not?

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?

But this is not the argument lol. Come on, how many times need it be explained to you?

Incorrect. Agnostics and atheists are different things.

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.

 

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).