Best Atheist arguments you probably haven't heard before

[TJump]

God = apple; Atheist believe in apples, contradiction? No.... the definition of God atheist don't believe in ISN'T THE SAME as an apple.

Robot: stop

Copying and pasting something you've already written and which has been contested performs nothing of value except to stonewall arguments that counter yours.

.... you really dont understand do you?

Dragon Glas asked where i had said that in the past, that is the quote i keep repeating where i said it.....

This:

God = apple; Atheist believe in apples, contradiction? No.... the definition of God atheist don't believe in ISN'T THE SAME as an apple.

Is the same exact argument you made:

Calling an apple god is stupid so there is no contradiction

[Calling the universe god (pantheism) is stupid, so there is no contradiction (with atheism)]


when i quoted your post/argument i replaced every time you said apple, with universe.... to make this exact point

 

[Sparhafoc]

.... you really dont understand do you?

The problem is that I really do understand.

The problem is that you do not understand anything about the nature of language, and you refuse to listen to criticism of your ideas.

Dragon Glas asked where i had said that in the past, that is the quote i keep repeating where i said it.....

This:

God = apple; Atheist believe in apples, contradiction? No.... the definition of God atheist don't believe in ISN'T THE SAME as an apple.

Is the same exact argument you made:

Calling an apple god is stupid so there is no contradiction

[Calling the universe god (pantheism) is stupid, so there is no contradiction (with atheism)]

That is NOT what I wrote.

I just told you I said nothing about 'contradiction' nor did I mean anything about 'contradiction' nor has there been ANY disagreements about 'contradiction'.

This is a red herring, and after your behavior so far, I will not allow you to simply move the goalposts again.


What IS a problem is that you think that words can be defined however you want them to be defined and that other people are obliged to accept it.

That is never the case. You are totally wrong on that account. You either use words indicating the panoply of meaning as described in a dictionary (i.e. the way words are actually used) or you specify a restriction of that definition because you wish to focus on a particular remit of meaning contained in that word.

What you cannot do is oblige people to accept assertions like 'pantheism is atheism' or 'Christians are atheist' or that notions like 'partial atheism' are valid or oblige people to agree that they make any sense at all.

You cannot do that, and it is perfectly valid for people to contend such claims.

when i quoted oyru argument i replaced every time you said apple, with universe.... to make this exact point

First, then DON'T quote my argument and change the words within that quotation. Quote it unadulterated, then recite it in your own speech with the words changed. This is the most elementary level of etiquette.

Secondly, you've spectacularly missed the point, or have moved the goalposts miles outside the playing field. You can't just 'change' words without changing meaning. That's the point. Words DO mean something, and that meaning is consensus based. You cannot have your own particular meaning if you want anyone else to understand. It's nonsensical.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Incidentally, how much of my post did you intend to ignore?

I can imagine why you don't want to touch any of it with a barge-pole, but I am not feeling the slightest charitable towards you.

So tell me how abiotic means 'partially biotic', asymptomatic means 'partially symptomatic', acellular means 'partially cellular' or admit your error and move on.

1) As has been explained to you: you're the one using equivocation - no one else is.

2) Atheist =/= naturalist - just because you assert this is so, it doesn't make it so. While not a complete guide, the fact we have two different words should give you some indication that they aren't directly synonymous. In this case, a naturalist CAN believe in gods as they're not necessarily contradictory positions, and an atheist can believe in some spiritualistic wooly bollocks that contradicts naturalism.

3) Theists are not methodological naturalists. Can a theist be a methodological naturalist? Yes. Are theists methodological naturalists? No.

4) Pantheists aren't atheists. You've had this explained to you in spades.

5) Christians are not atheists - it was really silly the first dozen times you asserted this, and it's only becoming more and more obtuse every time you double down on it. There is no such thing as 'partial atheism'. The 'a' prefix is expressly used as a NEGATION of the following term.

As such, abiotic cannot mean 'partially biotic', asymptomatic cannot mean 'partially symptomatic', acellular cannot mean 'partially cellular'. You are not just a little bit wrong, you are totally and utterly wrong and you are using words antithetical to their meaning and attempting to prescribe, through abusive, obnoxious authority, this erroneous conflation.

6) God is not apple. It is not acceptable in any form of discourse. It is just stupid, really, really stupid. But that has not stopped you repeating this. Further, you say 'God = apple, but atheists believe in apples' - and so YOU are committing an equivocation fallacy where you attempt to use the manufactured meaning to present a dichotomy that really doesn't exist.

7) Replacing apple with universe solves nothing - what 'solves' the problem is refusing to allow such nonsense to take place.

8) Playing with words is fun. But it has to be consensual, or you're just playing with yourself... in public.

 

[TJump]

First, then DON'T quote my argument and change the words

:FACEPALM:

When writers insert or alter words in a direct quotation, square brackets—[ ]—are placed around the change.

 

[Sparhafoc]

First, then DON'T quote my argument and change the words

:FACEPALM:

When writers insert or alter words in a direct quotation, square brackets—[ ]—are placed around the change.

Oh ffs you really are obnoxious.

Show me where a writer ELIDES a word and REPLACES it with a completely different word while pretending it's written by the original author.


And oh fuck me it gets worse.

You lifted that sentence directly from this site without citing it as your source...

https://writingcommons.org/open-text/research-methods-methodologies/integrate-evidence/incorporate-evidence/453-inserting-or-altering-words-in-a-direct-quotation

And you failed to acknowledge that it doesn't contain the method you've used:

When writers insert or alter words in a direct quotation, square brackets—[ ]—are placed around the change. The brackets, always used in pairs, enclose words intended to clarify meaning, provide a brief explanation, or to help integrate the quote into the writer’s sentence. A common error writers make is to use parentheses in place of brackets.

The uses listed are:

clarifying word
explanatory insert
change in letter case
a change in verb tense

Nowhere does it say you can just omit a word, replace it with another, and chuck some square brackets round it.


Oh and somehow, you failed to notice this bit...

A word of caution: Bracketed insertions may not be used to alter or add to the quotation in a way that inaccurately or unfairly represents the original text. Quite simply, do not use bracketed material in a way that twists the author’s meaning.

Shame.

 

[australopithecus]

Ok I've seen enough.