this just blew me away

[loganonekenobi]

I read this and was just stunned by this guys stupidity. I need to call this bullshit with the best words possible with out actually saying "bullshit".

"We also need to keep in mind how contradictory it is for atheists to demand "evidence" when they themselves cannot produce any since non-existence leaves not a trace of evidence. So atheism is clearly belief without evidence. The atheist position also demands that s/he reject any and all evidence of what monotheists speak of as "God" because if/since there is evidence, then God exists."

[Silver]

It is true, theists are retarded.

Those theists who make that argument, in relation to atheists needing to provide evidence for the non-existence of something, have been severely brain damaged to the point where they need to make those requests.

Thinking has never been the strong point of the theist.

If something clearly does not exist, one does not illogically require evidence for its non-existence.

It is clear that plenty of mythological gods are not real. It is also clear that Santa is not real.

We do not illogically require evidence for the non-existence of that which we already know is not real.

It's common sense, bitch.

[Aractus]

I read this and was just stunned by this guys stupidity. I need to call this bullshit with the best words possible with out actually saying "bullshit".

"We also need to keep in mind how contradictory it is for atheists to demand "evidence" when they themselves cannot produce any since non-existence leaves not a trace of evidence. So atheism is clearly belief without evidence. The atheist position also demands that s/he reject any and all evidence of what monotheists speak of as "God" because if/since there is evidence, then God exists."

It's not stupid because most evidence atheists produce are written by unqualified armchair "scholars". If you want to be taken seriously by theists you can't quote from people that don't have the required credentials. When I was a Christian the only evidence I ever saw atheists produce was low quality garbage from unqualified people or from scholars not respected in their fields. Think about this: quoting from an unqualified person as an attack against Christians is akin to quoting from your theologian. Would you accept an argument they bring from their theologian instead of from a scholarly source?

[Silver]

What I produce is from my intellectual mind, dear Aractus.

[Alex K]

I read this and was just stunned by this guys stupidity. I need to call this bullshit with the best words possible with out actually saying "bullshit".

"We also need to keep in mind how contradictory it is for atheists to demand "evidence" when they themselves cannot produce any since non-existence leaves not a trace of evidence. So atheism is clearly belief without evidence. The atheist position also demands that s/he reject any and all evidence of what monotheists speak of as "God" because if/since there is evidence, then God exists."

It's not stupid because most evidence atheists produce are written by unqualified armchair "scholars". If you want to be taken seriously by theists you can't quote from people that don't have the required credentials. When I was a Christian the only evidence I ever saw atheists produce was low quality garbage from unqualified people or from scholars not respected in their fields. Think about this: quoting from an unqualified person as an attack against Christians is akin to quoting from your theologian. Would you accept an argument they bring from their theologian instead of from a scholarly source?

Isn't that merely the Christian mind set, that they need, quite literally, arguments from authority? Real (as opposed to pious apologetics) arguments have power on their own, no matter who presents them. The question is whether it is a good argument or not, not so much who makes it. You should clarify whether you mean that. If you think that a large number of low quality arguments were made by atheists, that's a different issue. Whether more atheists with big credentials should publish arguments to impress Christians, because they are unable to see the merit of an argument on its own without an authoritative source, that's yet a different issue.

[Aractus]

Isn't that merely the Christian mind set, that they need, quite literally, arguments from authority?

No it isn't I reject that. Let me ask you this - how many "ethical" vegans do you think I will convert with hard evidence?

Answer: probably no one. But at least I know that I have the evidence - I know what the majority of academic thinking amongst contemporary experts is.

Most people don't care about what professional opinion is when forming their own, even on things like this. That's why we have so many people self-prescribing multivitamins they don't need. It's why there's a market for "toddler formula" which is an entirely unnecessary product that may do more harm than good.

Or the "every child with a laptop" initiative that appears to have done more harm than good for education.


Academic publications are evidence, and they are used in all these areas: nutrition, public health, education, etc. As well as: history/archaeology, sciences, etc. It's not about "arguments from authority", it's about using high quality information based on properly conducted research and investigation.

[Silver]

No it isn't I reject that. Let me ask you this - how many "ethical" vegans do you think I will convert with hard evidence?

Answer: probably no one.

Once again, I am calling upon the goddess in place of cursing.

There is no logical reference to compare veganism to religion.

Woo-hoo, a vegan found a purpose and he might, maybe, probably not, find a healthy way of living.

Except that I know the science does support a healthy vegan diet.

Science does not support god.

Nice try, though. Try again.

[Aractus]

There is no logical reference to compare veganism to religion.

Yes there is. It has a number of parallels to religion, but without the unique benefits that religion brings.

Except that I know the science does support a healthy vegan diet.

No it doesn't. There are positives and negatives to a vegan diet, just as there are positives and negatives to smoking. Smoking is great for stress, it's therapeutic, it helps with weight-loss in the short term. The bad things about it is that it's highly addictive, causes emphysema, causes lung cancer, increases the risk of CVD, ant it's expensive. Now you can not smoke at all, or you can do what I do and smoke cigars occasionally and get the therapeutic benefits without the risk of emphysema, addiction, and a much lower risk of lung cancer. Or you can smoke cigarettes and die early.

Veganism is no different to smoking. Vegans are only interested in discussing the benefits: it can lower LDL levels, it can help lower blood pressure, it can assist in weight-loss, and there's probably some other benefits I can't think of off hand. Negatives: unable to provide complete nutrition long-term (even excluding B12), reliance on vitamin supplements, greatly increased risk of osteoporosis and anaemia, increased risks of other nutrient deficiencies, lowers testosterone and destabilises other hormones, can be energy deficient, it's anti-social, is difficult to provide a balanced vegan diet.

There is a lack of scientific studies that show a prolonged benefit; and the healthiest known evidence-supported general-purpose diet that exits and is promoted by dietetic associations as well as governments is DASH, and it's just about as far away from vegan as you can get.

[Ivan Denisovich]

I guess it's easier for sheep to think that atheism is about belief as they can comfort themselves with thought that everyone believe, just like them.

[Red_Wind]

Argument from ignorance?