Best Atheist arguments you probably haven't heard before

[TJump]

Except that, as previously stated, I'm not contending that a specific usage of the word is what you meant when it wasn't actually what you meant, but rather that a specific usage of the word is objectively better than the usage you intended. That isn't a Strawman, as you so clearly said here in this very quote.

your uneducated opinion about which definition is better is a strawman, im not using you idiot definition so stop trying to starman me with your idiotic definition.

Arguing definitions will have 0 impact on me ever... i don't care what you think so stop wasting both our time and get back on topic.

Hey, did you know that sentences don't exist in isolation?

the definition i ma using has justification, i don't care about your alternatives... i'm not using those.

See, there's that word again. And again, as we've already agreed: Your use of the word implies that Christians are Atheists. My use of the word implies they are not. I'm arguing that my use of the word is better.

Again i dont care about your idiotic opinion on what the definition should be

this is the definition i am using... conversation over

your idiotic opinion is irrelevant to me.

I can accept that your argument is nonsensical by virtue of being all inclusive and naturally applying to the very same people you're attempting to argue against.

your imagined problem is your problem not mine... i dont care what problem your idiotic mind cant understand.

again this is your imagined problem that doesn't exist.

Person X doesn't like food,

All people dont like some foods so that statement is meaningless..........

No... clearly i mean he doesn't like ANY FOOD, even though it can also apply to individual examples of certain foods for anyone.

Look, man, there was no reason whatsoever to repeat this when I clearly addressed it below. Just, why?

you didn't address anything.
you are wrong i am right, nothing you say is ever going to change this why are you still wasting both our time?

You ignored the very nature of my argument, where I used both your definition of Pantheism (an all powerful, non sentient universe) and your definition of Atheism (anyone that doesn't believe in at least one god) to demonstrate a logical contradiction?

EQUIVOCATION FALLACY IDIOT. ALREADY ADDRESSED WITH APPLE ANALOGY IF YOUR TO STUPID TO UNDERSTAND IT THAT'S YOUR PROBLEM.

God = apple

Atheist believe in apples

ARE THEY STILL ATHIESTS?[/quote]

No. After all, they believe in a god. See?

I'm glad that you've finally conceded the point and admitted that TJumps use of the word is proper.

good i'm glad you finally understand.

EVEN THOUGH IT CAN ALSO APPLY to thiests in the cases of god they dont belive in JUST LIKE we can say person X doesn't like some food, they are atheist in regards to some gods.....

Except Atheism isn't "doesn't like some foods". Atheism is "doesn't like any food". We've been over this, TJump.[/quote]

YES YOU IDIOT....

bob doesn't like food
............................^
[because there is no qualifier this means TO ALL FOOD.]


bob is an atheist
..................^
[because there is no qualifier this means TO ALL GODS.]

Jane doesn't like SOME FOOD
jane is an atheist to SOME GODS.
......................^
[THIS HAS A QUALIFIER (SOME) SO IT DOES NOT MEAN BELIEVES IN 0 GODS, THAT'S YOUR STRAWMAN IDIOT, IN THIS CONTEXT IT MEANS LACKS A BELIEF IN ANY 1 GOD.]



we do say bob doesn't like food
we do not sane jane doesn't like food

AGAIN STOP WASTING MY TIME IDIOT

 

[TJump]

I told you the definition of atheism i am using.

if you are too stupid to understand it that's your problem

nothing you say has value you or not intellectually on my level, im not interested in what an idiot think the deified i should be using is.

Stop wasting both our time, stop arguing definitions.

 

[Greg the Grouper]

I told you the definition of atheism i am using.

if you are too stupid to understand it that's your problem

nothing you say has value you or not intellectually on my level, im not interested in what an idiot think the deified i should be using is.

Stop wasting both our time, stop arguing definitions.

If I'm not intellectually on your level, then odds are anything I say or do is wasting your time.

Be right back, gotta go argue definitions you agreed to, apparently.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I told you the definition of atheism i am using.

if you are too stupid to understand it that's your problem

Your mental distinctiveness is not required here.

We are the Borg.

Resistance is futile!

nothing you say has value you or not intellectually on my level,

You or not intellectually upon my level, does it not so hey bro.

You or worthless crab peon not in on see, so that is why I am like superior n shit.

Resistance or futile! You or be like assimilated.

im not interested in what an idiot think the deified i should be using is.

What the deified i up usin like whatever not idiotrested

#ERROR ERROR#

Stop wasting both our time, stop arguing definitions.

Resistance wurzel futile! You will be or assimilated n shiz.

Peon, no thee place!

 

[Greg the Grouper]

your uneducated opinion about which definition is better is a strawman,

Wow. I never knew that something like that could qualify as a Strawman. You've taught me so much, TJump, thank you.

im not using you idiot definition so stop trying to starman me with your idiotic definition.

Starman...Starboy...The Weeknd?

Arguing definitions will have 0 impact on me ever...

Okay, but what other choice do I have but to hope that you're wrong and fight the good fight? Come on, man, I can't just deem you a lost cause and move on with my life. This conversation is tearing me up inside.

the definition i ma using has justification

"I think other people use it" isn't a justification.
Also, why do you always ignore my arguments? Look, TJump, I know I'm just a worthless dullard, but I'm trying! I don't understand where I went wrong, and I need your help!

conversation over

I dunno.
I mean, I keep talking, and you keep responding...

your imagined problem is your problem not mine... i dont care what problem your idiotic mind cant understand.

Come on, TJump. Help me to understand. Tear into my argument, here. Be charitable.

you didn't address anything.

I did, though.
You even agreed to my use of the term.

EQUIVOCATION FALLACY IDIOT.

Now, see, you say that, but then you say that something which isn't a misrepresentation of your argument is a Strawman, and I just have to wonder.

good i'm glad you finally understand.

Then why have you been so mean to me this whole time!? This really hurts me deep down in my feelings place, TJump.

EVEN THOUGH IT CAN ALSO APPLY to thiests in the cases of god they dont belive in JUST LIKE we can say person X doesn't like some food, they are atheist in regards to some gods.....

YES YOU IDIOT....

bob doesn't like food
bob is an atheist

Jane doesn't like SOME FOOD
jane is an atheist to SOME GODS.

Jane is not, however, actually an atheist. Jane simply applies the same logic to some gods, but not all of them. We've already agreed on this, TJump, why all the fighting?

ATHEIST DOES NOT MEAN BELIEVES IN 0 GODS

This is factually incorrect.

 

[Sparhafoc]

AGAIN STOP WASTING MY TIME IDIOT

This has been a public service announcement from The World Council's Democratically Elected Overseer of Obligatory Prescriptive Usage of All Words

 

[Sparhafoc]

stop trying to starman me with your idiotic definition.

Psikh mate

That's bang out of order.

You can't just go round willy-nilly starmanning people, you know?

Especially not your intellectual superiors! Tuttut!

 

[TJump]

Except that, as previously stated, I'm not contending that a specific usage of the word is what you meant when it wasn't actually what you meant, but rather that a specific usage of the word is objectively better than the usage you intended. That isn't a Strawman, as you so clearly said here in this very quote.

That is exactly the problem.......

I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK THE DEFINITION SHOULD BE.... for ANY WORD
your thoughts were never a part of my argument.

stop wasting my time arguing definitions.

I will tell you 'I am using THIS definition', conversation over.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

stop trying to starman me with your idiotic definition.

Psikh mate

That's bang out of order.

You can't just go round willy-nilly starmanning people, you know?

Especially not your intellectual superiors! Tuttut!

Sparman, you went there... :facepalm:

Kindest regards,

James

 

[*SD*]

I thought this might be a good time to make a short list of stuff wot TJump lyks 2 do.

Incessantly announce his all conquering intellect whilst displaying startling amounts of ignorance on every subject mentioned so far

Redefine words so that they no longer mean the very thing they're supposed to mean

Brand all who notice this 'idiots'

Shout 'FALLACY!' every other post

Demonstrate no understanding (at all) of what any particular fallacy actually entails (especially starman strawman)

Generally be obnoxious



Have I missed anything?

 

[Greg the Grouper]

This is exactly the problem.......

I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK THE DEFINITION SHOULD BE.... for ANY WORD
your thoughts were never a part of my argument.

Aww, but your definition is so much worse than mine...

conversation over.

Is it, TJump? Is it really?

Pantheism defines God as an non personal eternal non contingent origin of everything, i.e. eternal universe. Which means it is effectively the same as atheism.

http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=187284#p187284

In response to what I wrote: The issue, again, is not the word you used (pantheism), but instead, what you meant by the word (all of creation being god).

TJump wrote: all of creation being god <--- never a definition i used..... that's the strawman the idiot used.

My definition = eternal all powerful non personal universe

http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=187381#p187381

In response to what I wrote: So by that logic, all Muslims are Atheists because they don't believe in Zeus, all Christians are Atheists because they don't believe in the Horned God and Goddess, all Hinduists are Atheists because they don't believe in Thor, and so on?

TJump wrote: Yes.

“We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”

― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=187425#p187425

So we've thoroughly established that you believe Pantheism is effectively Atheism, and that you believe Christians can be classified as Atheists. However, Pantheism suggests that the universe is all powerful, which is something that Christians don't believe. So how can Pantheism be equivalent to Atheism, while Christians are Atheists and not Pantheists?

It's almost like the definitions you want to use are craaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

... idiot... idiotic... idiotic... idiotic... idiotic... IDIOT... IDIOT... IDIOT... IDIOT...

 

[TJump]

[

So we've thoroughly established that you believe Pantheism is effectively Atheism, and that you believe Christians can be classified as Atheists. However, Pantheism suggests that the universe is all powerful, which is something that Christians don't believe. So how can Pantheism be equivalent to Atheism, while Christians are Atheists and not Pantheists?

christians are not atheists

[NO QUALIFIER = ALL GOD] total atheism

christians are atheist regards to ZUES

[QUALIFIER = ONLY PARTICULAR GODS] partial atheism


Bob doesn't like food.

[NO QUALIFIER BOB DOESN'T LIKE ANY FOOD]

Jabe doesn't like food EXCEPT PIZZA


BOTH DON'T LIKE SOME FOOD. Both are partial atheist, only bob is a total atheist



The words atheism, can mean EITHER total atheism or partial atheism......... IT HAS MULTIPLE MEANINGS, EQUIVOCATION FALLACY

I have the right to watch "The Real World." Therefore it's right for me to watch the show.

TWO DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS OF THE WORD RIGHT


Pantheism is effectively Atheism (TOTAL ATHEISM), and that you believe Christians can be classified as Atheists (PARTIAL ATHEIST).

TWO DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS OF THE SAME WORD,EQUIVOCATION FALLACY....... as i said the first time you typed this drivel.


simple to understand, the fact you're to dumb to understand this is your problem not mine.

 

[*SD*]

TJump - it's not your use of a proprietary definition that's the problem. The problem is your definition of atheism negates the very thing atheism IS - that's why it sucks, that's why you're too dumb to understand this and that's why you're an idiot.

 

[TJump]

The problem is your definition of atheism negates the very thing atheism IS

thats your own fabricated misunderstanding because of an equivocation fallacy, see above.

 

[*SD*]

equivocation fallacy

You don't know what that is either. See above.

Pointing out that your definition is fundamentally flawed, on a galactic scale isn't equivocating anything.

YOU are the one equivocating, you want to EQUIVOCATE atheism and theism. You also don't understand the RD quote you posted.

What he means is nobody (probably) believes in ALL the God's ever postulated, but many DO believe in ONE, some do not believe in ANY
The term for those who believe in at least ONE is THEIST - the term for those who do not believe in ANY is Atheist - meaning NOT theist, lacking theism, absent of theism.

When he uses that line, it's usually because he's trying to get people, usually theists, to understand what Atheism is. Those people are usually the ones who can't wrap their heads around the idea that some people don't believe in any God's. Or people who think everyone MUST believe in a God. He asks them to consider their views regarding a God that they don't believe in, often Zeus, and to acknowledge that they don't believe in Zeus and to understand the reasons why they don't. This helps them to accept the notion that some people just don't believe in ANY God's.

 

[Greg the Grouper]

christians are not atheists

Your definition begs to differ.

christians are atheist regards to ZUES

Therefore, Atheists, as per your definition.

Bob doesn't like food.

Jabe doesn't like food EXCEPT PIZZA


BOTH DON'T LIKE SOME FOOD. Both are partial atheist, only bob is a total atheist

And therefore, both are Atheists, by your own definition.

The words atheism, can mean EITHER total atheism or partial atheism......... IT HAS MULTIPLE MEANINGS, EQUIVOCATION FALLACY

TJump, all I'm doing is applying the definition that you yourself chose to use. I'm sorry that everything immediately falls apart once you do that. It's not as if I wanted everything to just fall apart.

something

Sorry, I spaced out for a second, what was that?

 

[Greg the Grouper]

You don't know what that is either. See above.

Pointing out that your definition is fundamentally flawed, on a galactic scale isn't equivocating anything.

YOU are the one equivocating, you want to EQUIVOCATE atheism and theism. You also don't understand the RD quote you posted.

What he means is nobody (probably) believes in ALL the God's ever postulated, but many DO believe in ONE, some do not believe in ANY
The term for those who believe in at least ONE is THEIST - the term for those who do not believe in ANY is Atheist - meaning NOT theist, lacking theism, absent of theism.

When he uses that line, it's usually because he's trying to get people, usually theists, to understand what Atheism is. Those people are usually the ones who can't wrap their heads around the idea that some people don't believe in any God's. Or people who think everyone MUST believe in a God. He asks them to consider their views regarding a God that they don't believe in, often Zeus, and to acknowledge that they don't believe in Zeus and to understand the reasons why they don't. This helps them to accept the notion that some people just don't believe in ANY God's.

That's all well and good, but you're forgetting that TJump is the expert here.

 

[*SD*]

You don't know what that is either. See above.

Pointing out that your definition is fundamentally flawed, on a galactic scale isn't equivocating anything.

YOU are the one equivocating, you want to EQUIVOCATE atheism and theism. You also don't understand the RD quote you posted.

What he means is nobody (probably) believes in ALL the God's ever postulated, but many DO believe in ONE, some do not believe in ANY
The term for those who believe in at least ONE is THEIST - the term for those who do not believe in ANY is Atheist - meaning NOT theist, lacking theism, absent of theism.

When he uses that line, it's usually because he's trying to get people, usually theists, to understand what Atheism is. Those people are usually the ones who can't wrap their heads around the idea that some people don't believe in any God's. Or people who think everyone MUST believe in a God. He asks them to consider their views regarding a God that they don't believe in, often Zeus, and to acknowledge that they don't believe in Zeus and to understand the reasons why they don't. This helps them to accept the notion that some people just don't believe in ANY God's.

That's all well and good, but you're forgetting that TJump is the expert here.

Sorry, it slipped my mind for a moment!

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Firstly, thank you for replying to my post.

1) As has been noted already, you are displaying classic symptoms of what psychologists call the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

i am the only expert on the definitions i am using. So anyone who is debating my definitions is the one suffering from dunning kruger effect.

I don't think you know to what flaw the Dunning-Kruger Effect applies.

Given you stated throughout this topic that you know more than anyone else here about the subject, yet - as Sparhafoc and others have noted - you show that you don't, whilst not being able to see and/or admit this, shows that you're the one suffering from D-K.

Arguing against your misuse of words is not D-K.

This is not The Taming Of The Shrew.

2) Your cleaving to a given position regardless of evidence to the contrary shows that you have a closed mind, normally associated with a "fundie".

Yes, i do have a closed mind about the definition I AM USING IN MY ARGUMENT..... because any other definition IS A STRAWMAN OF MY ARGUMENT.

Your redefining words to mean something they do not - and even the opposite of what they mean - is a straw-man of their proper meaning.

Challenging that is not straw-manning.

3) You are choosing a specific meaning of a term, and making it the only meaning of that term, such as your interpretation of the word "atheism", and/or, your wrongly equating words to have the same meaning, such as your equating pantheism with atheism.

NO... i have said MANY TIMES words has multiple definitions, but i WHEN ..I.. SAY ATHEIST I AM REFERRING TO..... explicitly means I AM USING IT THIS WAY, which does NOT means THIS IS THE ONLY WAY ANYONE CAN USE IT. (unless you are referring to my argument in which IT IS the only way you can use it, or its a STRAWMAN)

the idiots debating definitions ARE THE ONES DOING EXACTLY WHAT YOU ACCUSED ME OF......

Because this is MY ARGUMENT, i am the one who gets to tell you the definitions i am using in it, and any other definitions ARE STRAW MAN of MY argument....

The fact you cant understand this s baffling.

The fact that you can't seem to understand how your redefining words to mean something else is simply wrong, is itself baffling.

Given your equating of pantheism with atheism, the same could equally be said of pandeism and panpsychism: that they are both equivalent to atheism.

No
pandeism is a god who becomes the universe, so an actual all powerful conscious being did exist in that worldview, i.e. not atheism.

You now acknowledge that pandeism is not atheism yet continue to insist that pantheism is (equivalent to) atheism.

Can you not see the contradiction in your position?

Panpsychism is everything is conscious, the universe itself is conscious... i don't understand this enough to be able to categorize it.

It's a form of theism.

It has certain similarities to animism, although is not to be confused with it.

4) With the latter claim - "pantheism = atheism" - you are bending over backwards to such an extent to accommodate theists in order to argue against them, that you're surrendering your position as an atheist, and being in danger of leaving yourself without a leg on which to stand.

GOD HAS MULTIPLE DEFINITIONS...

If i say God = apple,

For the sake of argument, alright...

Atheist believe in apples

What??

You're saying that "atheists" believe in apples (gods)??

If they're atheists, by definition, they don't believe in gods of any description - whether you call God an apple or anything else for that matter.

yet they are STILL ATHEIST because the God the dont believe in has a DIFFERENT definition...

You're making no sense here at all.

Defining The universe as God (pantheism), and believing in the universe DOESN'T STOP SOMEONE FROM BEING AN ATHEIST... because the god they don't believe HAS A DIFFERENT DEFINITION

Take a few min to think it through... do you realize why what you said is stupid?

You need to take a few minutes to think this through yourself.

I think I see where your misunderstanding lies.

In a earlier post, you said this:

... theists believe in 1 god ...

They don't - monotheists do.

And theists don't believe in a personal god - they believe in gods, regardless of whether those are personal or impersonal.

For example, American Protestants believe in a personal God - Catholics don't (impersonal). [And, for the record, Catholics don't believe in three gods - they believe in the triune nature of God: not the same thing at all.]

Theists can believe in one (mono-), two (duo-), or many (poly-) gods.

Theists are not atheists - but, although they can be said to be "atheistic" towards all other gods but their own, they are still theists, not atheists.

Kindest regards,

James