VitalOne's Fallacious Rants Against Atheism

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by VitalOne, Nov 3, 2007.

  1. greenberg until the end of the world Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,811
    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.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Zyxoas Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    189
    Hey. Who renamed this thread? That was cheeky...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. ashura the Old Right Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,611
    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.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. ashura the Old Right Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,611
    He favors theism over atheism.
     
  8. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Yep, totally illogical too according to himself..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. ashura the Old Right Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,611
    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.
     
  10. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Yeah, but if he admits it and thus knows it.. why the hell is he still theistic ? He should be agnostic.. :shrug:
     
  11. Jeff 152 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    364

    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.
     
  12. greenberg until the end of the world Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,811
    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?


    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.


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


    I can't pinpoint it right now, but I suspect you haven't formulated the analogy properly.
     
  13. snake river rufus Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    855
    The moderator has joined all of VO's rants into one thread.
     
  14. ashura the Old Right Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,611
    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.

    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.

    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?

    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.
     
  15. VitalOne Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,716
    Because of my personal experiences, I already stated this about a million times before
     
  16. VitalOne Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,716
    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

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

    Thanks again for re-confirming a supposed strawman
     
  17. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Are they illogical too ?
    Because what do you think makes one atheist ? ..Yeah, personal experience that there isn't a God.
     
  18. VitalOne Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,716
    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
     
  19. ashura the Old Right Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,611
    Hey Vital, hope you'll get some time to address this.
     
  20. VitalOne Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,716
    I don't understand your question...

    But subjective experiences do not constitute as scientific evidence...
     
  21. VitalOne Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,716
    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"
     
  22. ashura the Old Right Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,611
    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?
     
  23. VitalOne Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,716
    Woah, how useless, it's a shame you can't address anything

    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?
     

Share This Page