And why do you not accept something? Could it be... because of an inability to believe?
VitalOne's Fallacious Rants Against Atheism
- Thread starter VitalOne
- Start date
And why do you not accept something? Could it be... because of an inability to believe?
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.
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?
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:
VitalOne said:
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
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?
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.
No, not according to himself. Regarding God, an agnostic apriori holds that neither belief nor disbelief are applicable categories.
See my earlier example with the small child and a comet. Belief and disbelief simply do not apply as possible categories in such cases.
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.
Thoreau
Valued Senior Member
I don't care if its a discussion forum or a lecture, ignorance is ignorant any way you look at it.
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.
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.
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.
Says who? The brain is like a computer.. it has arisen naturally.
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.
The evidence is in the same weight category, yes, (i.e it's crap).
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?
Strange question. Are you saying I did create myself?
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 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?
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.
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 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.
Yes, I'm aware that this is his claim. However, I'm saying it's wrong. That's... sort of my entire argument. :shrug:
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.
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.
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
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?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
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.
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.