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?

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

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?

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

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.;)

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

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!!!

...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.

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?

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!

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?

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.

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 ?

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!

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, 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.

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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.

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?

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"

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

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.

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

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.

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"

So hows turnng spider into a theist by praying working out for you?....just wondering

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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...

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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)

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.

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?

"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.

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.

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).

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

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.

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"

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

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

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.

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

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

You're not the coach, GTFO

I can play that game... STFU. :)

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".

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?

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

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.

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

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?

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!

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

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?

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...

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.

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!'.

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

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.

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.
Yeah you explained it as "I don't believe in X since there's no evidence, so I also don't believe in God since there's no evidnece"

I asked you to clarify and all you did was give other examples ("I don't believe in Martians")



Apologies, I didn't realise you'd explored mars. :bugeye:
Uhm Robots have...
:rolleyes:



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!'.
ROFL, you can only show that an intelligent cause exists if you gain design that could not have arisen naturally

Who or what the intelligent cause is is unknown

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?

where are these realistically measurable and verifiable evidences?

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....you're so funny

If one does not believe in something they are in the state of disbelief
If one does believe in something they are in the state of belief
If one does not believe nor disbelieve in something they are in neither belief nor disbelief

Looks like you must be blinded by the atheistic faith, it's not black and white, its not simply yes or no

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.
Right...and if you knew anything about biology you would know that this is an unsupported theory, there's no empirical evidence supporting it ROFL, but all of a sudden the atheist no longer requires evidence to believe

Not even one of those supposed phases can be shown in labs, they simply speculate "well this must have happened, we don't need no f*** evidence, we know it COULD be true"



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.
YES BLINDLY

In fact new geological findings tell us that the Earth was not what Miller or Urey thought at all, thereby setting us all the way back, it's no wonder a lot of biologists are favoring panspermia to explain it

Science is naturalism, ID cannot be in BY DEFAULT


Its relevance to anything I said?


ROFL, do you enjoy lieing?

There's the anthropic principle, the problem of induction, the deisgn features in cells, etc...

All shown as worthless. What was it you said? Ah yes.. use google.


If that's true why have many physicists, nobel prize winners, etc...admitted the immensely strong evidence for design?

Because they're theists.


you never will believe in God because you don't want to believe in God

This statement is simple idiocy. It's not a choice. I can say that I personally don't care either way - I will manage perfectly well whether a god exists or not, however 'want' doesn't come into the question. Needless to say one cannot just sit down and squeeze themselves into belief of something they lack a belief in. If you think otherwise kindly accept my challenge and start believing in leprechauns, (you only need to do it for 5 minutes then you can go back to disbelief :bugeye: ).

Any joy vital? Did you somehow manage to get yourself to believe in leprechauns? Of course you didn't, you don't have a choice in the matter. If however you then saw a leprechaun you would believe in them regardless to what anyone else thought. There is no choice vital, take the time to understand that.


what it does have to do with is you enjoying being an atheist and ridiculing religion

More idiocy. I don't "enjoy" being an atheist anymore than I enjoy being a non-alchemist or non-astrologer, your statement is ludicrous. As for ridiculing religion.. I'd rather not have to - alas it exists and spreads it's idiocy everywhere it goes.

ROFL....you're so funny

If one does not believe in something they are in the state of disbelief
If one does believe in something they are in the state of belief
If one does not believe nor disbelieve in something they are in neither belief nor disbelief

Looks like you must be blinded by the atheistic faith, it's not black and white, its not simply yes or no

Vital, can you explain to me how the hell someone can not believe and not disbelieve at the same time when not believing is the very definition of disbelieving??

Its relevance to anything I said?

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



All shown as worthless. What was it you said? Ah yes.. use google.
Ofcourse it's worthless, ask for evidence, deny and reject evidence, then say there's no evidence (that I would accept)

All praise the great atheistic faith



Because they're theists.
Uhm...a lot of them were atheists before :rolleyes: then became theists because of the evidence...I'm sure your great atheistic faith cannot handle this



This statement is simple idiocy. It's not a choice. I can say that I personally don't care either way - I will manage perfectly well whether a god exists or not, however 'want' doesn't come into the question. Needless to say one cannot just sit down and squeeze themselves into belief of something they lack a belief in. If you think otherwise kindly accept my challenge and start believing in leprechauns, (you only need to do it for 5 minutes then you can go back to disbelief :bugeye: ).

Any joy vital? Did you somehow manage to get yourself to believe in leprechauns? Of course you didn't, you don't have a choice in the matter. If however you then saw a leprechaun you would believe in them regardless to what anyone else thought. There is no choice vital, take the time to understand that.

More idiocy. I don't "enjoy" being an atheist anymore than I enjoy being a non-alchemist or non-astrologer, your statement is ludicrous. As for ridiculing religion.. I'd rather not have to - alas it exists and spreads it's idiocy everywhere it goes.
If this is true why do you use the atheistic strategy...ask for evidence, deny and reject evidence given, then say see there's no evidence (I would accept), then when asked so what would you consider to be evidence give very unrealistic things like "Well if one day God came down" or "Well if you revive an amputee's leg", otherwise if that evidence isn't provided I'll never believe nor CONSIDER any evidence given

Yeah you explained it as "I don't believe in X since there's no evidence, so I also don't believe in God since there's no evidnece"

I asked you to clarify and all you did was give other examples ("I don't believe in Martians")

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


Uhm Robots have...

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


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

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

Vital, can you explain to me how the hell someone can not believe and not disbelieve at the same time when not believing is the very definition of disbelieving??

I already did...

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

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

disbelief means positive certainty that something is false

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

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

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

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

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

argument from ignorance:
"There's no evidence God exists, so God doesn't exist"
"You can't prove God exists, so God cannot exist"
"Lack of evidence that God exists indicates that the existence of God is unlikely"
"Only what the current evidence at the present time indicates is the truth"

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

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

unfalsifiability: Atheism is unfalsifiable, just the same as any other faith-based belief system, in EVERY and ANY condition atheists can invoke the "god of the gaps" or "god-did-it" excuse and deny any and every imaginable amount of evidence. Anything that is unfalsifiable is just the same as any other faith-based belief.

How do atheists account for these fallacies?

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

Incorrect, (again). I lack a belief in gods because of the lack of evidence to suggest they exist. I lack a belief in martians because of the lack of evidence to suggest they exist. They both might exist, one might or none might. Neither is contingent upon the other but both lack evidence to suggest they exist and thus have equal standing on my lack-of-beliefometer.
Right...so what's the point of bringing up martians? You never explained this, nor will you

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

It's still a non-sequitur



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



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

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

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

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

You're saying disability is only refusal. I'm saying it's both inability and refusal.
Uhm...there's multiple definitions, clearly you being biased towards atheism favor one that favors atheism

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

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

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

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


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

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


Uhm...a lot of them were atheists before then became theists because of the evidence...I'm sure your great atheistic faith cannot handle this

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


If this is true why do you use the atheistic strategy...ask for evidence, deny and reject evidence given, then say see there's no evidence (I would accept), then when asked so what would you consider to be evidence give very unrealistic things like "Well if one day God came down" or "Well if you revive an amputee's leg", otherwise if that evidence isn't provided I'll never believe nor CONSIDER any evidence given

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's been explained. Many times now.


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

It's still a non-sequitur

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


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

What calculated conditions?


Probability....

Based upon what?

It's been explained. Many times now.

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



Where was any of that said? I never said anything didn't exist. Are you blind, stupid or a liar?
Lacking belief is the same...unless you lack disbelief too



What calculated conditions?
You know the atmosphere and all that



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

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



What are you saying to me? One must accept claims even when they're shit?
No, I'm saying you won't even consider any evidence, yet you ask for evidence, then deny and reject evidence, then say well see there's no evidence...

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



Do grow up a little.. please. I don't care what others do or do not believe in. I do not care who once believed something and then believed something else.. of what impact is that on my life other than a big fat zero? It's quite apparent that people from all walks of life do sometimes turn religious at certain stages after certain events in their lives. Whatever was your point?
ROFL...the point was that YOU said the only reason those physicists, nobel prize winners, and other reputable scientists say those things is because they're theists...THAT'S THE POINT

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



1) It is standard practice to expect evidence before believing something to be true.
Ok....again an argument from ignorance ("something is false until proven true")



2) You could assert that the existence of clovers and holes in trees is evidence of the existence of leprechauns. This is not very good evidence though and thus wouldn't give instant rise to a belief in leprechauns. ID arguments are comparable to this, (but a snowflake is so beautiful it couldn't have happened by chance) - it is not evidence for the existence of anything other than an interesting looking snowflake. This evidence would be rejected.. because it's not really evidence, it's just crap.
No you couldn't, you must be retarded, let me explain this slowly...

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

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



3) Why would god coming down be considered by you as "unrealistic"? He has apparently done it before and I'm sure is quite capable of doing it again. So where's the problem? Also, considering this being is supposedly omnipotent, what's the problem with him making a limb grow back?
Its not unrealistic, just unrealistic in our lifetime, it's a shame such a foolish notion has to be what would get you to believe...

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



4) Everything is considered. Do not throw a girly fit if it isn't instantly accepted.
Girly fit? ROFL...yeah, I guess you're right, you just deny and reject any evidence, ask for evidence, then pretend as if you never given evidence

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

Thanks

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

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

thye dont believe,they KNOW!! :p

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

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


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

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


You know the atmosphere and all that

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


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

I see.

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

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

As for pyramids:

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

YOU did with ID and scrutiny

Wait..

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


This isn't at all analogous to Clovers and Leprechauns

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


Its not unrealistic, just unrealistic in our lifetime

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

Wait..

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

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

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



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

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

You don't have to lie and pretend



I didn't discredit anyone, you asked me a simple question that I answered. It's unlikely you'll see an atheist pushing for ID, and yet much more likely that you'll see a theist pushing for ID - regardless to their occupation. Naked bias or just simple common sense?
Uhm...you said because "they're theists" so I told you there are also former atheists who become theist because of evidence and you get upset and say "yeah well I don't care, I don't understand how this has anything to do with the argument"



Yes you are arguing from ignorance. Your statement in quotes is not what was said or implied.
No I'm not, you're saying something is false until proven true or "I won't believe until there's evidence"



And.. where has anyone shown that something cannot arise naturally?
Well things like a computer can't arise naturally nor have the molecular machines in cells ever been shown to arise naturally

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



From an evidential standpoint it is. You keep making this fundamental mistake - thinking, (for some bizarre reason), that I am calling your god a leprechaun.
Well that's what you're saying, you're saying it's in the same weight



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

[QUOTE=SnakeLord]
Well, I certainly don't remember creating myself. Blame the designer heh :bugeye:
Yeah, do you remember what you ate 2 years ago on this day? Oh you dno't? I guess it NEVER happened...since you can't remember it, obviously it indicates that it's just a delusion



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

You see God doesn't really care



Out of interest, what would it take to convince you that leprechauns exist (I know that they do, but how can I convince you)?
Well that's easy, Leprechauns are supposed to be creatures that existed on an Island, so I would accept biological samples, fossils, the actual capturing of a Leprechaun, and other empirical evidence....

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any answer Vital?

Any answer Vital?

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

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

And why do you not accept something? Could it be... because of an inability to believe?

And why do you not accept something? Could it be... because of an inability to believe?

No it's because of uncertainty

No it's because of uncertainty

Uncertainty resulting in an inability to believe?

After all, you're saying because of uncertainty, you're not accepting something. You're unable to accept it because of the uncertainty.

Unable. Inability.

Arguing with you like this makes me want to cry Vital.

Uncertainty resulting in an inability to believe?

After all, you're saying because of uncertainty, you're not accepting something. You're unable to accept it because of the uncertainty.

Unable. Inability.

Arguing with you like this makes me want to cry Vital.

Well uncertainty resulting in the inabilithy to believe and disbelieve

Well uncertainty resulting in the inabilithy to believe and disbelieve

Stop. Wait. Inability to disbelieve? Isn't that the very definition of disbelief? So you're basically saying in that sentence that it's "uncertainty resulting in disbelief and the inability to disbelieve"? You don't see a problem with that?

Stop. Wait. Inability to disbelieve? Isn't that the very definition of disbelief? So you're basically saying in that sentence that it's "uncertainty resulting in disbelief and the inability to disbelieve"? You don't see a problem with that?

No the inability to disbelieve meaning not being able to refuse accepting something to be true and accept it as true

No the inability to disbelieve meaning not being able to refuse accepting something to be true and accept it as true

Heh, sorry. Made a type. That should have read:


Well uncertainty resulting in the inabilithy to believe and disbelieve

Stop. Wait. Inability to believe? Isn't that the very definition of disbelief? So you're basically saying in that sentence that it's "uncertainty resulting in disbelief and the inability to disbelieve"? You don't see a problem with that?

Heh, sorry. Made a type. That should have read:



Stop. Wait. Inability to believe? Isn't that the very definition of disbelief? So you're basically saying in that sentence that it's "uncertainty resulting in disbelief and the inability to disbelieve"? You don't see a problem with that?
Yeah, but you forgot the other part, the inability to believe and disbelieve

Yeah, but you forgot the other part, the inability to believe and disbelieve

No, didn't forget it.

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

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

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

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

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

I'm glad you brought this up. There are some modifications of these terms in religions.

For one, in religions, esp. in relation to Christianity, disbelief is the refusal to believe.
AFAIK, many Christians do not acknowledge the possibility that someone would be unable to believe; according to them all are able to believe.

For two, "to believe in God" has different meaning, depending on whether it is an atheist speaking, or a Christian.

To a Christian, "to believe in God" usually means 'to believe God exists and to worship Him'.

To an atheist, "to believe in God" usually means 'to believe God exists'.

To a Christian, "to not believe in God" usually means 'to not believe God exists and to refuse worship Him'.

To an atheist, "to not believe in God" usually means 'to not believe God exists'.

Bottomline, atheists and theists mean different things by the phrase "believing in God".


I had hoped this discussion could avoid this complication, but apparently, such won't be possible.

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, not according to himself. Regarding God, an agnostic apriori holds that neither belief nor disbelief are applicable categories.



Vital, if one does not believe in something, they're in a state of disbelief. This is a fact.

See my earlier example with the small child and a comet. Belief and disbelief simply do not apply as possible categories in such cases.



And why do you not accept something? Could it be... because of an inability to believe?

Yes, but this is not the only option. There are more options than just accept or reject. I had recently started a thread on this topic - there are at least six options: accept, reject, ignore, suspend, synthesize, redefine.

You do realize that you're in a discussion forum right?

I don't care if its a discussion forum or a lecture, ignorance is ignorant any way you look at it.

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

I'm sorry, but that is a highly unfair and inaccurate assertion. Scientific hypothesis and theories are scrutinized over and over and over again continually.


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

There's no need for that, because it's inaccurate. Wanting or not wanting is entirely irrelevant, but you seem to want me to force myself into belief of something, (a task that is impossible), without appropriate evidence. We can discuss what evidence I would deem acceptable, (again that's not a choice), but until such time it is simply impossible for me to believe in these things. It's the same with everything.

Once again I would like to ask you what it would take for you to believe in leprechauns. I think ultimately it's going to come down to you saying "I would need to see a leprechaun". We both work on the exact same principle - but in this instance you forego reason for the sake of emotion - an emotional position I am not currently in.

Emotional positions can be seen frequently. You'll find even the most ardent skeptics will be afraid after hearing noises in a 'haunted house'. If they retained their standard level of reason they wouldn't be shouting ghosts, but when emotions come into play reason takes a nose dive off the balcony.

So, from a non-emotional standpoint I simply say to you that I lack belief in certain entities. This includes gods, werewolves, vampires and mermaids. I acknowledge that there is a possibility that these things exist, but until such time where there is appropriate evidence to suggest that these things do indeed exist, I must and have no choice but to lack belief in it unless emotions get the better of me.


you're saying something is false until proven true or "I won't believe until there's evidence"

False until proven true and lack belief until there's evidence are two entirely different things. If you cannot navigate this hurdle there seems little point in continuing.


Well things like a computer can't arise naturally

Says who? The brain is like a computer.. it has arisen naturally.


Tell me is there any instance where you would say "something must have designed and has intelligent cause"? I'm guessing no

I currently see no reason to do so. I will say that certain things look quite funky from this perspective, it's only when you look at it in reverse that you see it's different.

It's like looking at a puddle in a hole in the ground. One could argue that the hole in the ground was made specifically for the puddle, as it fits it with absolute perfection. Of course one could realise that the puddle actually adapts to fit the hole and thus the hole doesn't look so special anymore.

Then you have ID, (Incompetent Design). The eye might look quite magnificent, but if designed by arguably the greatest intellect in the universe, why on earth would it have a blind spot? Why would our mouths be designed in a way where teeth, (wisdom), don't fit properly?

These are all important questions that need to be looked at, (and indeed are), but when it really comes down to it, no.. I see absolutely no valid reason to suggest that anything in nature was designed - by either an intelligent being or an incompetent one.


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

The evidence is in the same weight category, yes, (i.e it's crap).


Well, its unpredictable, immeausrable, you can't gather it, there's no experiment

If there's no possible experiments and it's immeasurable then there is absolutely no point in making the claim in the first place except out of interest in postulating random ideas. It is when it is no longer recognised as postulating but as fact of life that must be accepted, taught in school, and force fed to anyone and everyone that it becomes an issue with me.

The thing is, you dare sit here and tell me to believe in something that you have just told me is immeasurable and can't be experimented on. Who in their right mind would accept that?


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

Strange question. Are you saying I did create myself?


You see God doesn't really care

With one foul swoop you have just dismissed the claims of millions upon millions of theists. I don't mind you doing that, but it does go to show the nature of this very issue - everyone makes it up as they go along, each demanding and expecting me to believe what they say without question, not realising that if I was to do so I would believe in 1 trillion zillion different conflicting beliefs. Thus I await a time where there is evidence to come to educated conclusions.


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

Leprechauns are very tricky. The Book of Lenny, (the ultimate authority on leprechaun life), states that leprechauns do not actually die - hence you will not find fossils. It goes on to state that leprechauns are caretakers of the universe and very good at their jobs, thus you wont find biological samples. Furthermore, one cannot capture a leprechaun and the only place you can actually see their city is at the end of a rainbow.

What now?

ROFL you say it's a strawman (meaning misrepresentation) yet you use the very same arguments that are supposedly strawmen...ROFL

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


It's not a strawman, Richard Dawkins and many atheists like your OWNSELF uses these very same arguments

Your definition of atheist is a straw man.


For instance you just talked about other gods in order to discredit another God, non-sequitur

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


ROFL you proved your ownself wrong

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



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

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

I'm glad you brought this up. There are some modifications of these terms in religions.

For one, in religions, esp. in relation to Christianity, disbelief is the refusal to believe.
AFAIK, many Christians do not acknowledge the possibility that someone would be unable to believe; according to them all are able to believe.

For two, "to believe in God" has different meaning, depending on whether it is an atheist speaking, or a Christian.

To a Christian, "to believe in God" usually means 'to believe God exists and to worship Him'.

To an atheist, "to believe in God" usually means 'to believe God exists'.

To a Christian, "to not believe in God" usually means 'to not believe God exists and to refuse worship Him'.

To an atheist, "to not believe in God" usually means 'to not believe God exists'.

Bottomline, atheists and theists mean different things by the phrase "believing in God".


I had hoped this discussion could avoid this complication, but apparently, such won't be possible.

I'm sorry, but I don't see why this is relevant to the discussion. Whether or not some Christians think disbelief is only refusal, the reality is that there are plenty of atheists who're simply unable to believe in a god.

I believe I laid out my terms clearly with Vital, and he had no problem with them.

No, not according to himself. Regarding God, an agnostic apriori holds that neither belief nor disbelief are applicable categories.

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


See my earlier example with the small child and a comet. Belief and disbelief simply do not apply as possible categories in such cases.

And I already told you the child has no concept of a comet. In this case, agnostics do have a concept of a god and so the analogy is flawed.


Yes, but this is not the only option. There are more options than just accept or reject. I had recently started a thread on this topic - there are at least six options: accept, reject, ignore, suspend, synthesize, redefine.

I don't agree with your thread. At all.

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

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

Right...and if you knew anything about biology you would know that this is an unsupported theory, there's no empirical evidence supporting it ROFL

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

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

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


the atheist no longer requires evidence to believe

I am not an atheist, and I demand evidence.



Not even one of those supposed phases can be shown in labs, they simply speculate "well this must have happened, we don't need no f*** evidence, we know it COULD be true"

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



YES BLINDLY

fuck you



In fact new geological findings tell us that the Earth was not what Miller or Urey thought at all, thereby setting us all the way back, it's no wonder a lot of biologists are favoring panspermia to explain it

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

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!

Ah ok :D

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

No I don't.
Just curious, do you know what Psychological projection is ?

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

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

Occam's Razor. Voila.

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

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

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

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



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

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



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

I differentiate between the intention and the externally observable result.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


I differentiate between the intention and the externally observable result.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Occam's Razor. Voila.

He favors theism over atheism.

He favors theism over atheism.

Yep, totally illogical too according to himself.. :rolleyes:

Yep, totally illogical too according to himself.. :rolleyes:

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

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

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

He favors theism over atheism.


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

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

You said:


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

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

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

Do you think this is a proper dichotomy?



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

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



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

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



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

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

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

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

You said:

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

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

Do you think this is a proper dichotomy?

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

Occam's Razor. Voila.

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

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

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

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



I am not an atheist, and I demand evidence.



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



fuck you

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

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



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

Thanks again for re-confirming a supposed strawman

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

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

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

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

No, didn't forget it.

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

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

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

I don't understand your question...

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

No, didn't forget it.

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

No, that's not the definition...

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

No, that's not the definition...

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

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

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

Yes?

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



Your definition of atheist is a straw man.



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



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

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



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

Why do you enjoy ignoring facts?

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

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

Yes?

Yes...

Yes...

And "inability to believe" is one of the definitions of disbelief yes?

As per dictionary.com:

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

Wow ten pages and no one called VO on it. He names the thread: "VitalOne's fallacious rants against atheism"

From the opening post and the title of the thread, he admits all his arguments are fallacious! So why humor him? he's already admitted defeat! He admits his arguments are fallacious! LOL...

Wow ten pages and no one called VO on it. He names the thread: "VitalOne's fallacious rants against atheism"

From the opening post and the title of the thread, he admits all his arguments are fallacious! So why humor him? he's already admitted defeat! He admits his arguments are fallacious! LOL...

That wasn't the original title. A mod renamed it recently after merging this thread with some of Vital's other threads.

Wow ten pages and no one called VO on it. He names the thread: "VitalOne's fallacious rants against atheism"

From the opening post and the title of the thread, he admits all his arguments are fallacious! So why humor him? he's already admitted defeat! He admits his arguments are fallacious! LOL...

What an idiot...the moderator renamed this thread

And "inability to believe" is one of the definitions of disbelief yes?

As per dictionary.com:

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

Vital, are we going to finish this conversation?

And "inability to believe" is one of the definitions of disbelief yes?

As per dictionary.com:

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

Right...so what's your point? How many million times do I have to repeat myself?

I said the inability to believe AND disbelieve...why do you conveniently leave out the other part?

Right...so what's your point? How many million times do I have to repeat myself?

I said the inability to believe AND disbelieve...why do you conveniently leave out the other part?

No need to get pissy. I already said we're doing this step by step, we just haven't gotten to the rest yet.

So, we first concluded that "inability to believe and disbelieve" is the same as "Inability to believe and inability to disbelieve".

You just agreed that "inability to believe" is the definition of disbelief, so we can plugin disbelief in the place of that phrase. For example, "His inability to believe in her words is perfectly rational" can also be stated as "His disbelief in her words is perfectly rational".

And when you plugin with your statement of "inability to believe and inability to disbelieve", you get "disbelief and inability to disbelieve", which is a nonsensical statement.

Now, we've walked through this step by step. Can you show me where I went wrong, or why your statement isn't nonsensical?

No need to get pissy. I already said we're doing this step by step, we just haven't gotten to the rest yet.

So, we first concluded that "inability to believe and disbelieve" is the same as "Inability to believe and inability to disbelieve".

You just agreed that "inability to believe" is the definition of disbelief, so we can plugin disbelief in the place of that phrase. For example, "His inability to believe in her words is perfectly rational" can also be stated as "His disbelief in her words is perfectly rational".

And when you plugin with your statement of "inability to believe and inability to disbelieve", you get "disbelief and inability to disbelieve", which is a nonsensical statement.

Now, we've walked through this step by step. Can you show me where I went wrong, or why your statement isn't nonsensical?
No, you got it wrong...

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

It is difficult to present a case against religion and not sound offensive to theists, from the get go that one pronounces their lack of belief, there's mistrust and ominous feelings towards the atheist. Theist feel threatened just by the knowledge that a particular person they know is an atheist, be him/her their own family member or just a friend.

Theist confuse the atheist, non believer as being deluded, sick or in denial of what they think is obvious, they are right and fundamentally the atheist is plainly wrong. Theist are beyond the reach of reason or logic, as been demonstrated throughout this forum and others all over the web including YouTube rants against atheist pro's and cons of the argument.

Theists feel threatened with the new surge of atheist fire that is rising throughout much of the free world, and unfortunately they've got the guns, the politicians, the media, and an overwhelming number of ignorant masses believing that theirs is the truth of salvation.

So yea! man when they come to a scientific forum, we feel that here, we got every damn right to bitch, call names, and even get a warning every once in while for being too damn direct! Just call these forums stress therapy, we get out our frustrations here, dumb ass arguments are really not much tolerated, we see them on a daily basis, this is science, this is where they've got a chance to present scientific empirical evidence or at the very least a logical argument for their ideology which basically is a bowl of shit in the scesspool we call the world!
Yeah, it's a shame I can't legimately criticize atheism without being blocked out by the moderators

Atheists enjoy ridiculing theism, but you can't ridicule atheism, then it's a horrible thing to do, then it's offensive, then it's wrong

Athiests can't handle that their entire faith-based belief system is just the same any other faith-based belief system

You've already agreed "inability to believe and disbelieve" is the same as "inability to believe and inability to disbelieve" as you can see below:



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

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

Yes?

Yes...

And you've also agreed that inability to believe is the same thing as disbelief, as you can see below:




And "inability to believe" is one of the definitions of disbelief yes?

As per dictionary.com:

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

Right...so what's your point? How many million times do I have to repeat myself?

I said the inability to believe AND disbelieve...why do you conveniently leave out the other part?

So, you are still saying "disbelief and inability to disbelieve".

i can understand VitalOne is coming from though, most people in here a "Fallacious rants against" any religion. so right back at you, silly non believers

You've already agreed "inability to believe and disbelieve" is the same as "inability to believe and inability to disbelieve" as you can see below:



And you've also agreed that inability to believe is the same thing as disbelief, as you can see below:



So, you are still saying "disbelief and inability to disbelieve".
Right...so what don't you understand?

It comes down to the "inability to accept and refuse something being true"

What's the problem?

Look at it like algebra.

1. inability to believe and disbelieve = A + B

where A = inability to believe
and
B= inability to disbelieve

2. inability to believe = disbelief

3. A = disbelief

4. A + B = inability to believe and disbelieve = disbelief and inability to disbelieve

I don't how else to get this through to you.

Right...so what don't you understand?

It comes down to the "inability to accept and refuse something being true"

What's the problem?

What's the problem????

You don't see what the problem is with "disbelief and inability to disbelieve"???? :eek:

Like I said earlier, that's similar to saying "I neither own nor not own Reeboks!"

Look at it like algebra.

1. inability to believe and disbelieve = A + B

where A = inability to believe
and
B= inability to disbelieve

2. inability to believe = disbelief

3. A = disbelief

4. A + B = inability to believe and disbelieve = disbelief and inability to disbelieve

I don't how else to get this through to you.

No, you're over complicating things in order to favor your own propaganda....

A = accepting something to be true
B = refusing something as true
Inability to believe and disbeleive = NOT A+ NOT B

I don't understand what's so complex about it...it simply means "inability to accept and refuse something being true"

What's the problem????

You don't see what the problem is with "disbelief and inability to disbelieve"???? :eek:

Like I said earlier, that's similar to saying "I neither own nor not own Reeboks!"
No, there's is no problem, as for reeboks, this logic doesn't apply since it's a physical object, where as belief is not a physical object...

It's rather "neither belief nor disbelief"

No, you're over complicating things in order to favor your own propaganda....

A = accepting something to be true
B = refusing something as true
Inability to believe and disbeleive = NOT A+ NOT B

I don't understand what's so complex about it...it simply means "inability to accept and refuse something being true"

Fine, we'll use your version of it.

A = accepting something to be true
B = refusing something as true
Inability to believe and disbeleive = NOT A+ NOT B

You are aware that Not A, not accepting something as true, is the very definition of disbelief right? And that B is the very definition of disbelief, right?

So you're in essence, saying "disbelief, and not disbelief". Which is still nonsensical.

Fine, we'll use your version of it.

A = accepting something to be true
B = refusing something as true
Inability to believe and disbeleive = NOT A+ NOT B

You are aware that Not A, not accepting something as true, is the very definition of disbelief right? And that B is the very definition of disbelief, right?

So you're in essence, saying "disbelief, and not disbelief". Which is still nonsensical.
Uhm...no you have it wrong

It would be the same as saying "not belief and disbelief"

For instance, if something is "not big and not small", that doesn't mean you're saying it's "small and not small"

Uhm...no you have it wrong

It would be the same as saying "not belief and disbelief"

For instance, if something is "not big and not small", that doesn't mean you're saying it's "small and not small"

What do I have wrong Vital? Is it my definitions? I promise you you can look it up and see that I'm not lying about that.

Not big is not the definition of small. Not believing IS the definition of disbelieving. Your analogy is flawed.

What do I have wrong Vital? Is it my definitions? I promise you you can look it up and see that I'm not lying about that.

Not big is not the definition of small. Not believing IS the definition of disbelieving. Your analogy is flawed.

No "not believing" IS NOT "disbelief" in the context of "not believing and disbelieving"

Just like how "Not yes" is not "no" in the context of "not yes and not no"

can you guys get a room already!

No "not believing" IS NOT "disbelief" in the context of "not believing and disbelieving"

Just like how "Not yes" is not "no" in the context of "not yes and not no"

Again, flawed analogy. Not believing is ALWAYS disbelief, unless used in a figurative way such as to exclaim surprise (ie. I don't believe it!). That's because it's the friggin definition.

Not yes and no don't share the same relationship, the definition of no isn't not yes.

can you guys get a room already!

I'm an exhibitionist.

haha. so you are a "not no" exhibitionist

haha. so you are a "not no" exhibitionist

Correct, I'm no not exhibitionist.

Again, flawed analogy. Not believing is ALWAYS disbelief, unless used in a figurative way such as to exclaim surprise (ie. I don't believe it!). That's because it's the friggin definition.

Not yes and no don't share the same relationship, the definition of no isn't not yes.

No, it's not a flawed analogy

NOT believing BY ITSELF ALONE is ALWAYS disbelief
NOT believing AND disbelieving IS NOT disbelief

No, it's not a flawed analogy

NOT believing BY ITSELF ALONE is ALWAYS disbelief
NOT believing AND disbelieving IS NOT disbelief

Why? Because you say so? Look at the definition!

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

In ANY AND ALL instance where there is an inability or refusal to believe, it's disbelief! You're basically trying to tell me the dictionary and definition are wrong!

Why? Because you say so? Look at the definition!

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

In ANY AND ALL instance where there is an inability or refusal to believe, it's disbelief! You're basically trying to tell me the dictionary and definition are wrong!
Right....so you proved your ownself wrong...ROFL

NOT BELIEVING AND DISBELIEVING = "not accepting and not refusing that something is true"

DISBELIEF = "the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true"

Right....so you proved your ownself wrong...ROFL

NOT BELIEVING AND DISBELIEVING = "not accepting and not refusing that something is true"

DISBELIEF = "the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true"

I proved myself wrong?? Look at what you wrote!

NOT BELIEVING AND DISBELIEVING = "not accepting and not refusing that something is true"

What do you think that means?? It's the very definition of disbelief, as stated in your own post!

I proved myself wrong?? Look at what you wrote!

NOT BELIEVING AND DISBELIEVING = "not accepting and not refusing that something is true"

What do you think that means?? It's the very definition of disbelief, as stated in your own post!

No it isn't, ROFL, what are you talking about?

If someone possesses pure uncertainty whether or not something is true or false they neither believe nor disbelieve

Thnk of "yes, no, and maybe"

No it isn't, ROFL, what are you talking about?

If someone possesses pure uncertainty whether or not something is true or false they neither believe nor disbelieve

Thnk of "yes, no, and maybe"

If someone possesses pure uncertainty, that means they are not in a state of belief. That puts them in a state of disbelief. Note that this does not mean that they're refusing to believe, but that they're unable to. But it doesn't change the fact that it's disbelief.

If someone possesses pure uncertainty, that means they are not in a state of belief. That puts them in a state of disbelief. Note that this does not mean that they're refusing to believe, but that they're unable to. But it doesn't change the fact that it's disbelief.

No, you are confusing something, they are not in the state of belief nor disbelief, it IS NOT THE SAME AS DISBELIEF ALONE

disbelief alone means "the inability or refusal to accept something as true"

They are not refusing nor are they accepting

Your reasoning is so funny, by your logic "maybe = no" even thuogh maybe is not no

No, you are confusing something, they are not in the state of belief nor disbelief, it IS NOT THE SAME AS DISBELIEF ALONE

disbelief alone means "the inability or refusal to accept something as true"

They are not refusing nor are they accepting

Your reasoning is so funny, by your logic "maybe = no" even thuogh maybe is not no

You're still using flawed analogies. The state you're trying to talk about and use for your argument DOES NOT EXIST.

Look Vital, let's use ME as a guinea pig. You ask me if I think God exists, and I say I don't know if he exists. At that particular moment, from that answer, am I believing in God? Obviously not, right? But then, why wouldn't you call me an atheist?

You're still using flawed analogies. The state you're trying to talk about and use for your argument DOES NOT EXIST.

Look Vital, let's use ME as a guinea pig. You ask me if I think God exists, and I say I don't know if he exists. At that particular moment, from that answer, am I believing in God? Obviously not, right? But then, why wouldn't you call me an atheist?

It depends....

If you say "I don't know, but I don't think so" then yes
If you say "I don't know, but I think so" then no
If you say "I don't know if God exists, and make no claims regarding the existence or non-existence of God since the existence of God is unknown" then I would say neither (agnostic)

If you say "I don't know if God exists, and make no claims regarding the existence or non-existence of God since the existence of God is unknown" then I would say neither (agnostic)

But could you say in that instance that I believe in God?

But could you say in that instance that I believe in God?

No, I couldn't
But I also couldn't say that you disbelieve in God

You should give up your atheistic propaganda

No, I couldn't
But I also couldn't say that you disbelieve in God

You should give up your atheistic propaganda

But we've already established that if someone doesn't hold belief, they're in a state of disbelief, as that's the very definition of disbelief. :(

I don't know if I can do this anymore Vital. I don't know how I'm supposed to teach you English 101 over a forum.

Heres the problem... or atleast one of them. Many religious fanatics see things in black and white... you either believe in god or you don't. Thus, an argument can never be won against someone who does not think outside of those terms.

But we've already established that if someone doesn't hold belief, they're in a state of disbelief, as that's the very definition of disbelief. :(

I don't know if I can do this anymore Vital. I don't know how I'm supposed to teach you English 101 over a forum.


I gave up a while ago when it comes to trying to get VitalOne to... think for himself.

I'm away for a few hours, and look what happened ... ;)



This doesn't follow my earlier logic because like I said, I'm not trying to infer any reasons. Here, you're inferring a reason behind your ownership, or lack of ownership. All I'm saying is, 1. You own Reeboks or 2. You don't own Reeboks. That's all. I'm viewing belief in the same way.


I'm not looking for the reason why you don't believe. It doesn't matter to me why you choose not to believe.

The thing is that in religions, it usually DOES MATTER how come a person believes or doesn't believe.

That's why I said that trying to make the issue of belief an objective cognitive matter is inadequate.

For example, in Christianity, if a person says they believe in God because they don't want to go to hell, this is not enough; in fact, according to some Christians, it is precisely such belief in God that will land a person straight in hell.




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

My mistake might have been using the word rejection. It's a little too active.

Of course it's "too active", and "non-acceptance" doesn't mend the problem either.

Note that several stances might be at work here underneath, such as:
"If a person has something, it is because they want to have it."
"If a person doesn't have something, it is because they chose not to have it."
"Whatever the state of affairs, it is a result of conscious, deliberate actions."
These are sometimes adequate, but other times they are not.



So, in your particular case, all the "alternatives" (reject, ignore, synthesize, suspend, redefine) are all different degrees of not accepting. Are we getting closer to being on the same wavelength?

I'll put it this way: From a particular perspective, there are two externally observable results: accept and not accept. But there are six different intentions possible to lead to those results:
The intention to accept leads to acceptance.
The other six intentions lead to non-acceptance (or rejection, if you will).


The crux is that religions and philosophies often refuse to accept the person's own account of what their intentions are, but instead some religions and philosophies impose on the person their own understanding of what intention lead to a particular result.

So a religion might claim, "If you don't believe in God, this is because you are deliberately refusing to believe in God, despite the fact that you know the Truth".



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

I gave up on trying to understand Vital's position.

Vitalone, page 8, post #154, reply, or resign the argument.

I gave up a while ago when it comes to trying to get VitalOne to... think for himself.

Well it comes from knowing a disease, and or denying a disease. An alcoholic will never admit he/she's an alcoholic, seldom they've come to the realization they are an alcoholic, to the same point a brained washed theist will never admit they are incoherent, irrational, or gay! They deny their wrong, they think they are right, and tries to fight in anyway to admit that EVERY one else who doesn't agree with their world view of god, is plainly wrong! Thus this mentality spurs world conflicts between individuals and unfortunately between government leaders. Imagine if this dood was some sort of politician, how safe would you feel?

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

it's really you, because post after post you disregard everything I said about the scientific method.
I'm pretty sure everyone here is aware that the scientific method is not perfect, but it is the best thing we have, and if you don't like it, feel free to go back to medieval age.



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

I am not an atheist. I don't have to believe in abiogenesis or in anything else. I follow up on research.



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

Thanks again for re-confirming a supposed strawman

I'm sorry, but you shouldn't be using the very same fallacies you are criticising, should you? I thought you said that lack for evidence for one thing doesn't automatically count as evidence for something else. I mean, do you actually consider the insuficient evidence for abiogenesis to be an evidence in favour of design? Can you say that to my face?
Or do you actually have any serious evidence at all of design?

This is getting very tiring... I'm ready to give up on you, vital

But we've already established that if someone doesn't hold belief, they're in a state of disbelief, as that's the very definition of disbelief. :(

I don't know if I can do this anymore Vital. I don't know how I'm supposed to teach you English 101 over a forum.

No, that was never established...why do I keep having to repeat myself a million times?

Listen, there's:
belief
disbelief
neither belief nor disbelief

Why do you see things only in a way to promote the atheistic propaganda?

I gave up a while ago when it comes to trying to get VitalOne to... think for himself.

I'm the only one here that thinks for myself...you guys are upset because no other theist has been able to logically beat you up

Vitalone, page 8, post #154, reply, or resign the argument.

I already responded to that, post #180, maybe you should resign

Heres the problem... or atleast one of them. Many religious fanatics see things in black and white... you either believe in god or you don't. Thus, an argument can never be won against someone who does not think outside of those terms.

Right, ashura see's things in black and white, ashura says there's only belief and disbelief, in you possess pure uncertainty (neither refusal nor acceptance) then it's some how disbelief, even though it's not refusal

Right, ashura see's things in black and white, ashura says there's only belief and disbelief, in you possess pure uncertainty (neither refusal nor acceptance) then it's some how disbelief, even though t's not refusal

It's still disbelief because refusal isn't the only kind of disbelief. Inability to believe, which is NOT refusal, is also disbelief.

It's still disbelief because refusal isn't the only kind of disbelief. Inability to believe, which is NOT refusal, is also disbelief.

What? It's not refusal because you're not refusing to believe....

Come on ashura just admit it

What? It's not refusal because you're not refusing to believe....

Come on ashura just admit it

If you're not refusing to believe, but you're still unable to believe, it's still disbelief.

disbelief can be either

refusal to believe
OR
inability to believe

If you're not refusing to believe, but you're still unable to believe, it's still disbelief.

disbelief can be either

refusal to believe
OR
inability to believe

Yes you can...what's wrong with you?

In your world there is either "YES" OR "NO"..."maybe" does not exist

Yes you can...what's wrong with you?

In your world there is either "YES" OR "NO"..."maybe" does not exist

Yes you can what?

Yes you can what?

Sorry I read that wrong

I meant to say you can have neither belief and disbelief...

Sorry I read that wrong

I meant to say you can have neither belief and disbelief...

Still doesn't address your denial of this:

If you're not refusing to believe, but you're still unable to believe, it's still disbelief.

disbelief can be either

refusal to believe
OR
inability to believe

Still doesn't address your denial of this:

If you're not refusing to believe, but you're still unable to believe, it's still disbelief.

disbelief can be either

refusal to believe
OR
inability to believe

No, you're not simply unable to believe, you're neither refusing nor accepting

There it's been addressed

No, you're not simply unable to believe, you're neither refusing nor accepting

There it's been addressed

You're confusing the issue. These last few posts haven't been towards your nonsensical example of "neither believe nor disbelieve" but to this comment of yours:


Right, ashura see's things in black and white, ashura says there's only belief and disbelief, in you possess pure uncertainty (neither refusal nor acceptance) then it's some how disbelief, even though t's not refusal

I'm trying to get it through your head that refusal isn't the only form of disbelief.

You're confusing the issue. These last few posts haven't been towards your nonsensical example of "neither believe nor disbelieve" but to this comment of yours:



I'm trying to get it through your head that refusal isn't the only form of disbelief.

No, refusal isn't the only form of disbelief according to you because it contradicts your atheistic propaganda...to you and other "weak atheists" anything besides belief in God is atheism

I've said this over and over again, the reason it's not disbelief is because you're not refusing to believe

No, refusal isn't the only form of disbelief according to you because it contradicts your atheistic propaganda...to you and other "weak atheists" anything besides belief in God is atheism

I've said this over and over again, the reason it's not disbelief is because you're not refusing to believe

:eek:

According to ME?? Because it contradicts my atheistic propaganda? And not because it's the very definition of the word???

After that comment Vital, it's apparent that we're not even speaking the same language anymore. I give up.

I'll end our lengthy conversation with something we can hopefully both agree on: Ron Paul '08. :)

nothing to say, vital?

it's really you, because post after post you disregard everything I said about the scientific method.
I'm pretty sure everyone here is aware that the scientific method is not perfect, but it is the best thing we have, and if you don't like it, feel free to go back to medieval age.
When did I do that?



I am not an atheist. I don't have to believe in abiogenesis or in anything else. I follow up on research.
Ok



I'm sorry, but you shouldn't be using the very same fallacies you are criticising, should you? I thought you said that lack for evidence for one thing doesn't automatically count as evidence for something else. I mean, do you actually consider the insuficient evidence for abiogenesis to be an evidence in favour of design? Can you say that to my face?
Or do you actually have any serious evidence at all of design?

This is getting very tiring... I'm ready to give up on you, vital

Right, so basically your entire post addressed no arguments at all...I never said a lack of evidence for abiogenesis was evidence of design, I said atheists don't care if there's no evidence for it :rolleyes: , design is ofcourse a viable explanation though

Nice try though, amateur ;)

Varda has a point though VitalOne. It is something I have mentioned to you before. You don't believe abiogenesis and think it is a failed theory due to what you see as a lack of evidence. Isn't this what you criticise atheists for? This is why they don't believe in gods. You think evidence makes something true right? You call the following argument from ignorance -

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

Replace god with abiogenesis ....

This has been an entertaining thread. A little like an Abbot and Costello routine. Ashura has shown a lot of patience.

Not only are you disagreeing with atheists VitalOne, you seem to have disagreement with the english language.

Varda has a point though VitalOne. It is something I have mentioned to you before. You don't believe abiogenesis and think it is a failed theory due to what you see as a lack of evidence. Isn't this what you criticise atheists for? This is why they don't believe in gods. You think evidence makes something true right? You call the following argument from ignorance -

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

Replace god with abiogenesis ....

This has been an entertaining thread. A little like an Abbot and Costello routine. Ashura has shown a lot of patience.

Not only are you disagreeing with atheists VitalOne, you seem to have disagreement with the english language.

Uhm...did you actually read my posts? I was criticizing atheists for being hypocritical when it comes to abiogenesis, they say it doesn't matter if there's no evidence then, they call for the argument of ignorance, etc....but when it comes to God they all of a sudden say they NEED evidence

I never said abiogenesis is false because of a lack of evidence...

I'm the only one here that thinks for myself...you guys are upset because no other theist has been able to logically beat you up

My friend, no theist (including you) have been able to provide any form of significant evidence in order to win an argument against me, or anyone else for that matter. Your points are loaded and based in only what you percieve as truth. And you don't think for yourself, that much is very apparent. I've read alot of what you've said since I've been a member here on SF, and NOTHING you have said in relation to a theological discussion has been based in anything other than your own religion. Your pious attitude restricts you from accepting anything that may go against the grain of what you have acquired as truth from your holy scriptures.

And perhaps that is the greatest difference that seperates you and I. When someone challenges your way of thinking, you automatically judge and tag it as "false beliefs" and seek their prosecution in order to fulfill your own faith with total disregard of anything otherwise. However, when someone presents logical evidence of anything that I do not hold familiararity with, I concider thier evidence, look at all sides and accept it if the facts provided outweighs the facts that I already know. For example, lets just say I believed that the world was flat and someone told me that the world was indeed NOT flat. I would ask for firm evidence to support thier claim. If the evidence supporting thier claim has more significance and is more logical than my beliefs of the world being flat, then yes I would accept it as truth and accept that the world was infact round.

And there is the key word, ACCEPTANCE. Acceptance is something that seems nearly implausible by you. Instead of accepting the facts presented to you, you automatically discard them because its not something you feel comfortable with. And theres another key word. COMFORTABLE. Its human nature to stick with what we see as familiar and comfortable. We as humans are naturally resistant to change. More often than not, we will go to extreme lengths in order to avoid change, whether that change is physical, mental, or spiritual. But it takes a strong person to accept change when it comes. It takes a strong person in order to release thier old ways and accept new ones. Its called evolution. And unfortunately, not all people evolve. Some, like yourself, refuse change and will hold thier ground until the sun burns out. And thats fine... just don't expect many others to be there by your side in the end.

You keep believing, I'll keep evolving.


Right, ashura see's things in black and white, ashura says there's only belief and disbelief, in you possess pure uncertainty (neither refusal nor acceptance) then it's some how disbelief, even though it's not refusal.

Ashura's beliefs are of no concern to me and have no relevance in what I am trying to say to you. However, now that we are on the subject, I shall tell you once again which I have told you so many times before.

"Just because one does not believe in a god, that does not mean that they do not believe in the possibility of a god."



I accept you for what you believe, can you accept me for what I believe? I am not here to change your mind, but only to express my disgust with your oppression of others.

VitalOne. I thought you had referred to abiogenesis as a failed theory because we have not been able to demonstrate it.

Sorry I forgot to reply to your post greenberg:


The thing is that in religions, it usually DOES MATTER how come a person believes or doesn't believe.

That's why I said that trying to make the issue of belief an objective cognitive matter is inadequate.

For example, in Christianity, if a person says they believe in God because they don't want to go to hell, this is not enough; in fact, according to some Christians, it is precisely such belief in God that will land a person straight in hell.

Again, even with your example, that person still believes in (a) God doesn't he/she? It's not the belief that's in question.


Of course it's "too active", and "non-acceptance" doesn't mend the problem either.

Note that several stances might be at work here underneath, such as:
"If a person has something, it is because they want to have it."
"If a person doesn't have something, it is because they chose not to have it."
"Whatever the state of affairs, it is a result of conscious, deliberate actions."
These are sometimes adequate, but other times they are not.

And again, all we'd be looking at is if a person has something, or if they don't have something. That's all.


I'll put it this way: From a particular perspective, there are two externally observable results: accept and not accept. But there are six different intentions possible to lead to those results:
The intention to accept leads to acceptance.
The other six intentions lead to non-acceptance (or rejection, if you will).

So... I still don't get where you and I would disagree. Those two observable results are all that matter in this instance, because they tell you whether someone has belief or not.


The crux is that religions and philosophies often refuse to accept the person's own account of what their intentions are, but instead some religions and philosophies impose on the person their own understanding of what intention lead to a particular result.

So a religion might claim, "If you don't believe in God, this is because you are deliberately refusing to believe in God, despite the fact that you know the Truth".

And even in your last sentence, no matter what the religion claims, the person still doesn't believe in God right?


I gave up on trying to understand Vital's position.

Ditto. :p

My friend, no theist (including you) have been able to provide any form of significant evidence in order to win an argument against me, or anyone else for that matter. Your points are loaded and based in only what you percieve as truth. And you don't think for yourself, that much is very apparent. I've read alot of what you've said since I've been a member here on SF, and NOTHING you have said in relation to a theological discussion has been based in anything other than your own religion. Your pious attitude restricts you from accepting anything that may go against the grain of what you have acquired as truth from your holy scriptures.

And perhaps that is the greatest difference that seperates you and I. When someone challenges your way of thinking, you automatically judge and tag it as "false beliefs" and seek their prosecution in order to fulfill your own faith with total disregard of anything otherwise. However, when someone presents logical evidence of anything that I do not hold familiararity with, I concider thier evidence, look at all sides and accept it if the facts provided outweighs the facts that I already know. For example, lets just say I believed that the world was flat and someone told me that the world was indeed NOT flat. I would ask for firm evidence to support thier claim. If the evidence supporting thier claim has more significance and is more logical than my beliefs of the world being flat, then yes I would accept it as truth and accept that the world was infact round.

And there is the key word, ACCEPTANCE. Acceptance is something that seems nearly implausible by you. Instead of accepting the facts presented to you, you automatically discard them because its not something you feel comfortable with. And theres another key word. COMFORTABLE. Its human nature to stick with what we see as familiar and comfortable. We as humans are naturally resistant to change. More often than not, we will go to extreme lengths in order to avoid change, whether that change is physical, mental, or spiritual. But it takes a strong person to accept change when it comes. It takes a strong person in order to release thier old ways and accept new ones. Its called evolution. And unfortunately, not all people evolve. Some, like yourself, refuse change and will hold thier ground until the sun burns out. And thats fine... just don't expect many others to be there by your side in the end.

You keep believing, I'll keep evolving.



Ashura's beliefs are of no concern to me and have no relevance in what I am trying to say to you. However, now that we are on the subject, I shall tell you once again which I have told you so many times before.

"Just because one does not believe in a god, that does not mean that they do not believe in the possibility of a god."



I accept you for what you believe, can you accept me for what I believe? I am not here to change your mind, but only to express my disgust with your oppression of others.

Hmm...so your argument is "I say you don't think for yourself because you're a theist, case closed"

What a useless argument

I've acquired "truth" from personal experiences, you've acquired truth from Richard Dawkins and other atheists. I also provided lots of evidence of "Creator"'s existence, however all was denied, I then asked what would constitute as evidence and all I got were things that I could not possibly gather like "Well if one day God came down" or "If you revive an amputee's leg"...

I did NOT get truth from Holy Scripture and in the past had many doubts and thought that things like heaven, hell, gods, etc...were probably not real or symbolic at best...then however after many experiences everything changed

Also I do not judge atheists at all nor do I condemn them and say they'll go to hell or anything like that, I have repeatedly stated in the past that even atheists can go to heaven if their karma leads them there and I never have condemned atheists for being atheists, only for possessing the attitude you have, which is that theists are sub-human, I don't know what you're talking about, but then again anyone who criticizes atheism must be a "Christian fundementalist" right?

It's always the same with you atheists, if you're a theist, then you're just another delusional fool who doesn't think for himself

Hmm...so your argument is "I say you don't think for yourself because you're a theist, case closed"

What a useless argument

I've acquired "truth" from personal experiences, you've acquired truth from Richard Dawkins and other atheists. I also provided lots of evidence of "Creator"'s existence, however all was denied, I then asked what would constitute as evidence and all I got were things that I could not possibly gather like "Well if one day God came down" or "If you revive an amputee's leg"...

I did NOT get truth from Holy Scripture and in the past had many doubts and thought that things like heaven, hell, gods, etc...were probably not real or symbolic at best...then however after many experiences everything changed

Also I do not judge atheists at all nor do I condemn them and say they'll go to hell or anything like that, I have repeatedly stated in the past that even atheists can go to heaven if their karma leads them there and I never have condemned atheists for being atheists, only for possessing the attitude you have, which is that theists are sub-human, I don't know what you're talking about, but then again anyone who criticizes atheism must be a "Christian fundementalist" right?

It's always the same with you atheists, if you're a theist, then you're just another delusional fool who doesn't think for himself

You have again proven my point. And guess what... I'm not an atheist. I don't even know who this Richard Dawkins is. I am a spiritual person, not a religious person. I practice many different forms of spirituality, mainly Buddhism. I find the aspects in this world which I find as positive and peaceful and I apply those aspects in my every day life.

You have again proven my point. And guess what... I'm not an atheist. I don't even know who this Richard Dawkins is. I am a spiritual person, not a religious person. I practice many different forms of spirituality, mainly Buddhism. I find the aspects in this world which I find as positive and peaceful and I apply those aspects in my every day life.

Just curious MZ3Boy84, would you say you believe in a god or gods?

Furthermore, I've told you before, DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH or assume you know me in the slightest..


you've acquired truth from Richard Dawkins and other atheists.
False


Hmm...so your argument is "I say you don't think for yourself because you're a theist, case closed"
False.

Evaluate all evidence and all knowledge before assumptions.