VitalOne's Fallacious Rants Against Atheism

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.

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.

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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...

 

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

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

Probability....

 

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

 

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

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

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?

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

 

It's been explained. Many times now.

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

What calculated conditions?

Based upon what?

 

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...

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

You know the atmosphere and all that

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

 

YOU did with ID and scrutiny

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

thye dont believe,they KNOW!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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.

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

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.

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.

 

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.

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

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?

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

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

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.

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

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

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".

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.

 

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

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"

No I'm not, you're saying something is false until proven true or "I won't believe until there's evidence"

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...

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

 

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

 

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