Best Atheist arguments you probably haven't heard before

[Greg the Grouper]

Pantheists are atheists (total atheist)

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

Makes perfect sense

No, it doesn't. Again, the way you defined atheism entails that anyone that doesn't believe in at least one god is an atheist. There is no 'partial atheist' there; Christians don't believe in at least one god and are therefore atheists, full stop.

Oh, by the way:

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

It's not relevant to the argument... they just wasting my time which is why i blocked them.

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.

This would not fit the theists definition of God, but there definition is no more or less valid than any other.

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

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

Pantheists are atheists

None of these are the same claim. Example: all Pantheists can be Atheists even if Pantheism isn't effectively the same as Atheism, but is instead a sub-category of Atheism. Not to mention you literally say in the first claim here that Pantheism defines God as the eternal universe, ie that the universe is a god. Which one of these claims did you actually want to go with?

 

[TJump]

Pantheists are atheists (total atheist)

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

Makes perfect sense

No, it doesn't. Again, the way you defined atheism entails that anyone that doesn't believe in at least one god is an atheist. There is no 'partial atheist' there; Christians don't believe in at least one god and are therefore atheists, full stop.

Oh, by the way:

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

It's not relevant to the argument... they just wasting my time which is why i blocked them.

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.

This would not fit the theists definition of God, but there definition is no more or less valid than any other.

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

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

Pantheists are atheists

None of these are the same claim. Example: all Pantheists can be Atheists even if Pantheism isn't effectively the same as Atheism, but is instead a sub-category of Atheism. Not to mention you literally say in the first claim here that Pantheism defines God as the eternal universe, ie that the universe is a god. Which one of these claims did you actually want to go with?

Nop i just told you christian are partial atheists, you denying the definition i just gave is a strawman.

Pantheist believe in all powerful eternal non personal universe

Atheist usually believe in the universe

Pantheism and atheism are compatible (which is a synonym of the term 'the same', which i am not saying they are the EXACT same equivocation fallacy)

Again no contradiccion, you are just an idiot.

Any other definitions you think contradict?

 

[Greg the Grouper]

Nop i just told you christian are partial atheists, you denying the definition i just gave is a strawman.

What you just told me doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. If, as you've said before, atheism is the denial of at least one god, then it applies to Christians. There is no gray area here for you to justify this 'partial' descriptor.

Pantheist believe in all powerful eternal non personal universe

Cool, so that's the one you're going with? Fine. It still contradicts itself in that Christians must by definition be Atheists.

 

[TJump]

What you just told me doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. If, as you've said before, atheism is the denial of at least one god, then it applies to Christians. There is no gray area here for you to justify this 'partial' descriptor.

strawman you being an idiot is not a problem with my argument....

Words can mean multiple things.

Right = direction

Right = legal right

the word Right alone can be referring to either.



Atheist = total atheist

Atheist = partial atheist

The word atheist on its own can be reffergin to either.




Chrisint are athiests
in this sentence atheist refers to partial atheist

Pantheists are atheist
In this sentence atheism refers to total atheism

again you being an idiot and not understanding how language works isn't a problem with my argument...

google 'equivocation fallacy examples'.

There is no gray area here for you to justify this 'partial' descriptor.

I don't need to justify it, its my definition. anything else is a strawman of what i said.

So there is no contradiction with MY definitions even though there may be a contradiction with yours.

 

[*SD*]

TJump doesn't get it. He never will. He's just going to keep parroting the same incorrect and incoherent ramblings ad nauseam.

But it's fine, he's ensuring with every post he writes that everyone who reads this thread knows, with certainty what a first class idiot he is.

 

[Greg the Grouper]

Atheist = total atheist

Atheist = partial atheist

Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and stop you right there because this is a new low even for you and I can't even focus on the rest of your post.
Honestly, I'm not even sure if Sye Ten Bruggencate would be caught dead making this kind of statement. You've frustrated me before this, but at no point prior to this comment was I angry enough to actually feel nauseous. I'm shocked that anyone could make such an assertion without immediately retracting it, and I know you didn't immediately retract it because I previewed just to see if your comment changed and I'm only posting this comment after my computer froze. At this point, I have never been so sure in my life that I was talking to a person completely divorced from reality. This will be my last response to you, regardless of what you or anyone else says, because at this point you could post a video on YouTube of you tying your own shoes and I still wouldn't be entirely sure that you were capable of such a momentous feat. I have lost all faith that you have any potential in life.

First of all, you don't put the word that you're defining right in the definition. You just don't fucking do that. What the shit, man. That tells us literally nothing of what an Atheist is. This is the least offensive aspect of this clusterfuck.

Second of all, 'Partial' and 'Total' are obviously contrary qualifiers. You literally just defined 'Atheist' as being two contradictory ideas. You might as well say that one who is 'Wealthy' possesses an amount of usable currency that allows them to live a life of luxury for the rest of their days, and that 'Wealthy' also refers to one that has no real possessions to their name and lacks any purchasing power at all.

Third of all, Atheist = Partial Atheist? What herculean leap in logic could possibly have lead you to the conclusion that anything could be a fraction of itself? An apple can't be a single, solitary slice of an apple regardless of whether or not you want to define it as much, that is completely nonsensical. Making that statement is like declaring that X = X - Y, and I don't know how else to explain that this is downright insane.

Do you...do you know what the Identity Property even is? I've never had someone give me cause to think they didn't grasp the Identity Property before, and I'm at a loss as to how to proceed or to express my misery and disgust.

 

[TJump]

Words can mean multiple things.

Right = direction

Right = legal right

the word Right alone can be referring to either.



Atheist = total atheist

Atheist = partial atheist

The word atheist on its own can be reffergin to either.

I'm not even going to read your post your too intellectually beneath me.

Its been adequately explain to you why your wrong. you being to stupid to understand that is your problem

 

[*SD*]

Cucumber - total cucumber

Cucumber - partial cucumber

Also -

Cucumber - is cucumber

Cucumber - is giant screaming wolf cheddar (total or partial)

 

[Greg the Grouper]

Cucumber - total cucumber

Cucumber - partial cucumber

Also -

Cucumber - is cucumber

Cucumber - is giant screaming wolf cheddar (total or partial)

This entire conversation has given me a baseline by which I can judge whether or not it's possible for me to have a conversation with a human being.

 

[TJump]

Words can mean multiple things.

Right = direction

Right = legal right

the word Right alone can be referring to either.



Atheist = total atheist

Atheist = partial atheist

The word atheist on its own can be reffergin to either.

Im not even going to read your post, its been adequately explained above. If you are to stupid to understand that's your problem,

Pull your head out of your ass = problem solved

 

[*SD*]

I'm not even going to read your post your too intellectually beneath me.

Its been adequately explain to you why your wrong. you being to stupid to understand that is your problem

:lol:

Please keep posting. You're the gift that keeps on giving :lol:

 

[back]

s)

Can something be the objective truth, without being the absolute truth?

Well it depends on what you mean by these terms. But for example to say that I am 31 years old (+some months) would be an objective but not an absolute truth.

Objective because it is true independently of human opinion, those who say that I am 60 years old are objectively wrong. But it is not absolute because next year I will have a different age. But obviously this is just semantics.

Why not including God in that list? it is wrong whether or not God thinks so?

Well I am not arguing that OMV are based on Gods opinion

No it doesn't. There could be infinitely many alternatives for objective moral values such as deism, pantheism, naturalistic pantheism etc.... P1 assume god is the only possible basis for no reason whatsoever.

There could be potentially infinite many alternatives for any claim. There are infinite many alternatives to evolution for example, but most of them (if not all) would be very week and stupid alternatives, just like the “all powerful impersonal universe” that you proposed.

Yes i agree morality by evolution would not qualify as objective/absolute

And you would also agree that morality by evolution would be a better explanation that the “all powerful” universe that you proposed right?.

As far as i know most atheists deny P1 because they see it as circular reasoning because they see your definition of objective as being synonymous with God, you can search for criticism of moral argument to see examples.

My definition for objective can be used in a “non religious” context I don’t see any basis for your accusation.

 

[TJump]

Well it depends on what you mean by these terms. But for example to say that I am 31 years old (+some months) would be an objective but not an absolute truth.

Objective because it is true independently of human opinion, those who say that I am 60 years old are objectively wrong. But it is not absolute because next year I will have a different age. But obviously this is just semantics.

Again it can't just be human opinion, it has to be any opinion. Otherwise alien opinions are objective.

If i were to say "At this moment you are 31 years old", would that be an absolute truth?

Can something that is false but we just dont know it yet, be objective?

If we existed in a computer program, this cup I am holding is only a product of the program, it the cup objective? Or is it subjective to the program? what if we have the same question but we are brains in a vat, instead of a computer program?

By objective you seem to mean the absolute truth of the matter. By which i mean it cannot be overturned or proven false with further discovery. (i.e. it can't be false but we just dont know it yet otherwise it would not be objective)... that is what i mean by absolute truth.

Well I am not arguing that OMV are based on Gods opinion

If not gods opinion, what are they based on?

There could be potentially infinite many alternatives for any claim. There are infinite many alternatives to evolution for example, but most of them (if not all) would be very week and stupid alternatives, just like the “all powerful impersonal universe” that you proposed.

That seems like an unsupported assumption, how is my explanation any weaker than yours?

And you would also agree that morality by evolution would be a better explanation that the “all powerful” universe that you proposed right?.

Yes i believe that morality being the result of evolution has evidential support, where morality being objective does not. So evolution is a better explanation than theism or pantheism.

My definition for objective can be used in a “non religious” context I don’t see any basis for your accusation.

[/quote]

I was not talking about your definition specifically, i'm still not sure i understand your definition, i meant in general one of the common criticism of the moral argument is that it is circular because objective has the same definition of god. (the conclusion is in the premise)

 

[Sparhafoc]

Im not even going to read your post, its been adequately explained above. If you are to stupid to understand that's your problem,

Pull your head out of your ass = problem solved

What's most amusing about this is that TJump seems to have found someone he believes is sufficiently on par with him intellectually to hold a reasoned conversation and it's LEROY! :lol:

 

[Sparhafoc]

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?

You silly, silly man.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Nop i just told you christian are partial atheists, you denying the definition i just gave is a strawman.

That's now how definitions, strawman fallacy, or discourse with other human beings operates.

Pantheist believe in all powerful eternal non personal universe

No, you've been shown wrong.

Atheist usually believe in the universe

Irrelevant. Atheists aren't defined by belief in the universe.

Pantheism and atheism are compatible (which is a synonym of the term 'the same', which i am not saying they are the EXACT same equivocation fallacy)

Compatible is an entirely different argument than any you've previously made (goalposts) and was not the point being contended. You're equivocating.

You're supposed to be showing that pantheism entail atheism as per your original formulation.

Again no contradiccion, you are just an idiot.

Actual contradiction, albeit not present in your flexible goal-post, and everyone you're calling an idiot is running circles round you.

Any other definitions you think contradict?

I expect all the ones you decide to craft idiosyncratic versions of.

 

[Sparhafoc]

What you just told me doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. If, as you've said before, atheism is the denial of at least one god, then it applies to Christians. There is no gray area here for you to justify this 'partial' descriptor.

strawman you being an idiot is not a problem with my argument....

It IS a problem with your argument because it's an ad hominem fallacy, and you keep relying on that fallacy to do the work your brain should be doing.

Words can mean multiple things.

Right = direction

Right = legal right

the word Right alone can be referring to either.

Words CAN indeed mean multiple things although that's irrelevant to your argument because it's not polysemy that's the problem with it.

Also CAN does not actually mean IS.

Atheist = total atheist

Atheist = partial atheist

The word atheist on its own can be reffergin to either.

Reffergin? Someone's rattled again.

No, that's not a valid definition.

You're equivocating. You are trying to prescribe the use of a word and, in so doing, making that word mean something it expressly contradicts.

What you're actually saying is that atheism is theism, and that theism is atheism. These words are necessarily in contradiction, so they can't be synonymous.

There's no 'partial' atheism. Atheism is a disbelief in the category of gods.

Chrisint are athiests
in this sentence atheist refers to partial atheist

Chrisint... you should slow down and let your brain catch up with your fingers.


Christians aren't atheists of any sort. They are theists: monotheists.

This is functionally equivalent to saying that up is partially down, or left is partially right etc. You can't use antonyms as synonyms.

Pantheists are atheist

They're not.

in this sentence atheism refers to total atheism

Then you're wrong on 2 accounts in just 3 words.

again you being an idiot and not understanding how language works isn't a problem with my argument...

The person not understanding how language works isn't 'everyone else' - it's you.

google 'equivocation fallacy examples'.

Fuck off. Go google it yourself you lazy ass. We've all seen how well you performed when someone did your legwork for you. If you can't support your argument, then your argument has failed.

There is no gray area here for you to justify this 'partial' descriptor.

I don't need to justify it, its my definition. anything else is a strawman of what i said.

You do need to justify calling monotheists atheists because it's batshit.

Learn what the strawman fallacy is.

So there is no contradiction with MY definitions even though there may be a contradiction with yours.

That's because your definition is idiosyncratic and ad hoc; it also requires abandoning the universally agreed upon meaning of the words you're defining.

No one is obliged to join you in your flight of deluded fantasy.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Another amusing corollary here of what we shall refer to as TJump's 'argument' is based on this...

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

Then they're also only partial theists because while they believe in one god, there are lots they don't believe in.

As such, Hindus are more theistic than Christians because they believe in more gods than just one, and less atheistic than Christians because there are less gods they don't believe in.

As such, the only full theist is the one who believes in all gods: we have our One True Theist, the omnitheist.


In reality, of course, this is all deranged bunk. Embarrassing that a guy who keeps rubbing himself off in public is so devoid of even elementary comprehension.

I thought it was only religionists who got this lost in their navels on the topic of religion. I was wrong.

They don't make philosophy like they used to. Between this and Monistic Idealism's post, I think it's safe to say we're on a trajectory towards idiocracy.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

 

[Greg the Grouper]

There's no 'partial' atheism.

I had this moment last night where I calmed down and started thinking again. When this happened, it occurred to me that if Atheist = Partial Atheists, then Partial Atheists = Atheists by necessity, and therefore all Partial Atheists such as Christians must be Atheists by definition. It made me angry all over again.

 

[Sparhafoc]

There's no 'partial' atheism.

I had this moment last night where I calmed down and started thinking again. When this happened, it occurred to me that if Atheist = Partial Atheists, then Partial Atheists = Atheists by necessity, and therefore all Partial Atheists such as Christians must be Atheists by definition. It made me angry all over again.

I don't know how you can get angry with this chap. He's fucking hilarious! :lol:

I have to admit though, I saw some footage from a Trump rally today which mimics this thread to a tee - we're in this position, whether we like it or not. People like TJump have found their groove.

But yeah, when people so obviously don't have a fucking clue what they're talking about but feel the need to blag and bully their way through, we end up with such inanities as this thread.

Christians are atheists, theists are atheists, everyone's an atheist: hallelujah, praise the apple!

As I said earlier, with 'friends' like this; who needs Creationists?