VitalOne's Fallacious Rants Against Atheism

Ah, I see "why explain when I can just say stuff, case closed"

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

hahaha

You used another logical fallacy to justify a logical fallacy, "if there was really evidence we wouldn't be having this discussion"

Hmm...so what's your point?

The supposed "laws of physics" have changed as science has progressed...

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"

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

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?

 

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 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

You implied it right here:

So you agree you can dismiss things based upon pure personal incredulity + ignorance

How is it a strawman if you agree that you use it?

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

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)

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

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

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?"

Yes they do...except for weak atheists, which are just weak theists, which are just agnostics

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

 

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 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.

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

[/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

 

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.

 

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

What? You just completely changed the subject and made it appear as if you were addressing something...

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

 

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

 

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?

 

I'll address your questions in the new thread then.

 

Theism, Agnosticism, Atheism, wtf?

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?

 

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.

 

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