Best Atheist arguments you probably haven't heard before

[Sparhafoc]

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.

The smell of narcissistic solipsism in the morning.

You don't have thoughts, peons!

You listen to the words of the divine arbiter of all things.

And you listen NOW!

 

[Sparhafoc]

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?

Random CAPS

Has his syntax, grammar, and spelling break down as he works himself into a lather.

Display such little humanity that one has to wonder whether a bot is getting its electronic kicks.

 

[Greg the Grouper]

Random CAPS

Has his syntax, grammar, and spelling break down as he works himself into a lather.

Display such little humanity that one has to wonder whether a bot is getting its electronic kicks.

Oh, come on. That isn't very charitable.

 

[Sparhafoc]

christians are not atheists

[NO QUALIFIER = ALL GOD] total atheism

christians are atheist regards to ZUES

[QUALIFIER = ONLY PARTICULAR GODS] partial atheism

....

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

Yeah Psikh!

Christians aren't atheists dumbo, except when they are! Jeez, I can't believe you can be this thick! :lol:

 

[Sparhafoc]

Random CAPS

Has his syntax, grammar, and spelling break down as he works himself into a lather.

Display such little humanity that one has to wonder whether a bot is getting its electronic kicks.

Oh, come on. That isn't very charitable.

Goodness me, you're right! I hang my head in shame.

I admit I forgot to add

IDIOT!


There, all charitabled up now.

 

[Sparhafoc]

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.

Not the equivocation fallacy where atheist means not atheist... no, that's just logic mate.

Rather, the equivocation fallacy where atheist means atheist - how utterly inane of you not to spot this blatant equivocation between the same word.

 

[Greg the Grouper]

Level with me here, Sparhafoc. Is there any possible way that we can manage to ignore TJump and salvage this thread?

 

[Sparhafoc]

Hinduism: atheism multiplied!

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Hinduism: atheism multiplied!

Polyatheism.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Greetings,

Hinduism: atheism multiplied!

Polyatheism.

Kindest regards,

James

Homeopathic-atheism.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Greetings,

Firstly, thank you for replying to my post.*snip*

Can't bring myself to go and tamper with all the quote tags to cite this post in full, but it was all good.


Comprehensive AND polite, therefore you're blocked again!

 

[Sparhafoc]

Hinduism: atheism multiplied!

Polyatheism.

Homeopathic-atheism.

:lol:

Ahh this thread is beginning to pay dividends.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Greetings,

Firstly, thank you for replying to my post.*snip*

Can't bring myself to go and tamper with all the quote tags to cite this post in full, but it was all good.


Comprehensive AND polite, therefore you're blocked again!

Thank you - wonder if you'll feel as charitable when you notice my earlier reply to you ...

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Sparhafoc]

Level with me here, Sparhafoc. Is there any possible way that we can manage to ignore TJump and salvage this thread?

Tis the nature of the beast, I fear.

I think this thread doesn't need salvaging as its treasures are right there in plain sight.

I place high value on things that make me laugh, and this is turning into a right chuckle.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Thank you - wonder if you'll feel as charitable when you notice my earlier reply to you ...

Hold on, let me plumb the rabbit hole and go to topsy turvy land....

Why, that is most reasonable of you. You are quite the thinker, I am humbled by your presence.


According to TJump's rendition of the principle of charity... you just got burned, bro!

 

[TJump]

Thx for the free bumbs.

My argument, my definitions.

Any alternatives definitions are strawman. Any definition you prefer are strawman.

I am the ultimate authority on the definitions used in MY argument, you dont get an opinion.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Thx for the free bumbs.

My argument, my definitions.

Any alternatives definitions are strawman. Any definition you prefer are strawman.

I am the ultimate authority on the definitions used in MY argument, you dont get an opinion.

In your OP, TJump, you envisioned challenging William Lane Craig, and other top apologists, to a debate using your argument.

The problem is that if you attempt to redefine the meanings of words the way you've done here, Craig will pull you up on it and win the debate right there by showing you don't know what you're talking about, even before the debate proper has begun.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[*SD*]

Very good point, James. But tjump will just call WLC an idiot, throw his toys out of the pram and storm off. Oh and declare victory of course

 

[Greg the Grouper]

Thx for the free bumbs.

I get the impression that you think some other folks are going to jump into the conversation and that's going to change something?
Most of the regular users have seen this by now. You've already spoken with quite a few of those more regular users.
This is it, TJump. Your thread isn't going to magically change overnight, unless the administrator sees it and decides to ban the both of us or something.

My argument, my definitions.

Cool. Your argument collapses into nonsensical gibberish as a direct result of your definitions.

Any alternatives definitions are strawman. Any definition you prefer are strawman.

I mean, if we were to simply pretend that you used the alternative definitions, sure. Your argument might benefit from that, actually.

I am the ultimate authority on the definitions used in MY argument, you dont get an opinion.

But I get an opinion about your argument itself, right?
It's nonsensical.
It's nonsensical because of the definitions you use.

 

[TJump]

Thx for the free bumbs.

I get the impression that you think some other folks are going to jump into the conversation and that's going to change something?
Most of the regular users have seen this by now. You've already spoken with quite a few of those more regular users.
This is it, TJump. Your thread isn't going to magically change overnight, unless the administrator sees it and decides to ban the both of us or something.

My argument, my definitions.

Cool. Your argument collapses into nonsensical gibberish as a direct result of your definitions.

Any alternatives definitions are strawman. Any definition you prefer are strawman.

I mean, if we were to simply pretend that you used the alternative definitions, sure. Your argument might benefit from that, actually.

I am the ultimate authority on the definitions used in MY argument, you dont get an opinion.

But I get an opinion about your argument itself, right?
It's nonsensical.
It's nonsensical because of the definitions you use.

Pantheists are atheists (total atheist)

Christians as partial atheists, because they lack belief in many gods but not all

Makes perfect sense.... any time i say the word 'atheist' in my argument i am referring to total atheists

your being an idiot is not a problem with my argument, try again

Any other definitions you think contradict?