Best Atheist arguments you probably haven't heard before

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

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

[...]

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.

If you're going to define them like that, it would be more correct to call them "virtually atheists" on the grounds they're 99.999...% atheists.

Pantheist believe in all powerful eternal non personal universe

Then they are theists - because they "believe in" a universe that is synonymous with God: whether it's personal or impersonal is irrelevant.

Atheist usually believe in the universe

No, atheists don't "believe in" the universe - they simply accept that it exists. Absolutely, no belief in gods, remember?

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)

So, all those times you posted,...

pantheism = atheism

... wasn't a equivocation fallacy?

Again no contradiccion, you are just an idiot.

See above.

Any other definitions you think contradict?

Most of your definitions are contradictory - along with your changing your position on said definitions throughout this thread.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[TJump]

If you're going to define them like that, it would be more correct to call them "virtually atheists" on the grounds they're 99.999...% atheists.

That is true, but this isn't a serious definition i never refer to christians as atheists in my argument that's just an idiots strawman that they can't themselves understand... but there is no logical contradiction.

Then they are theists - because they "believe in" a universe that is synonymous with God: whether it's personal or impersonal is irrelevant.

This has been addressed multiple times, words have multiple meaning EQUIVOCATION FALLACY on your part, no contradiction on mine.

The batter is swinging, and the child is swinging; but they are not doing the same thing. Contradiction? No... the batter is swinging a bat, the child is swinging in a swing.

An atheist is a naturalist. A theist is a naturalist. Contradiction? No... the atheist is a metaphysical naturalist, the theist is a methodological naturalist.

Pantheism are atheists, and christians are atheists. Contradiction? No... Pantheism are total atheists, christians are partial atheists.

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

replace apple with universe, problem solved.

An all powerful, eternal universe IS NOT a god by atheist definition, just like apples are not God by atheist definition. So atheist can believe in an eternal universe and apples and still be atheists.

The fact you idiots don't understand basic linguistics is the problem. the natural ambiguity of language (google 'govagai') means any word can have many meanings so debating the 'better' or 'correct' definition makes you an idiot... that's not how language works.

No, atheists don't "believe in" the universe - they simply accept that it exists. Absolutely, no belief in gods, remember?

Google 'accept defintion'

2. believe or come to recognize (an opinion, explanation, etc.) as valid or correct.
"this tentative explanation came to be accepted by the group"
synonyms: believe

idiot.............

So, all those times you posted,...

pantheism = atheism

... wasn't a equivocation fallacy?

That was just me being lazy because you idiots aren't worth the time of a detailed explanation.

Most of your definitions are contradictory - along with your changing your position on said definitions throughout this thread.

Again you have not indicated a single contradiction in anything i said, only demonstrated your own ignorance of how language works and uncharitable interpretations of what i said.

 

[Sparhafoc]

This has been addressed multiple times...

Indeed it has, and you're still too stupid and up your own rectal passage to note your vapid wittering has been eviscerated.

 

[Sparhafoc]

That was just me being lazy because you idiots aren't worth the time of a detailed explanation.

The reason I was wrong is because you're all idiots.

 

[*SD*]

i never refer to christians as atheists

It's a direct consequence of your 'definition'

This has been addressed multiple times

It certainly has been, yes. Dozens of times, by multiple different participants

EQUIVOCATION FALLACY on your my part

Once again, FIFY - you're welcome

That was just me being lazy and an idiot

FIFY


At this point I'm calling troll. It's not like it hadn't already crossed my mind, but now you've provided enough evidence for me (at least) to be certain.

You're quite lucky to have someone like DG still giving you the oxygen of attention in any serious manner, I'm perfectly happy to dismiss you as an idiot wot iz two dumB to understanz anyfink.

You should thank DG for his courteous replies, and genuine engagement with your nonsensical horse shit argument and utterly useless steaming piles of shit
and definitions.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I was watching some kids kicking a ball around today. One kid got in a hump for something I didn't catch, but it was after the other 'team' scored a goal. He picked the ball up and refused to let the others play. He kept repeating that it was his ball and so they had to follow his rules. Eventually, after much cajoling and entreating by the others, he threw the ball at someone and stormed off in a huff.

Some people never grow up.

 

[*SD*]

Chreists and atheians are the same thing. There is no problem with my definition, you're all just too stupid to understand the massive power of my massive ego.

Troll dismissed.

 

[Sparhafoc]

That is true, but this isn't a serious definition i never refer to christians as atheists in my argument that's just an idiots strawman that they can't themselves understand...

5 sentences later.

Pantheism are atheists, and christians are atheists.

By TJump's own 'logic', he's an idiot. He's not just an idiot for using idiotic arguments, not just an idiot for being aggressive, abusive, and juvenile, not just an idiot for not realizing he could have backed down a thousand times... no, he's also an idiot because his own argument necessarily entails it.

I believe this is what is technically known in the heady heights of serious philosophy as an own goal.

 

[*SD*]

He's a troll. Although it's often fun to feed a troll, I think naughty step is far more appropriate in this particular instance

 

[Sparhafoc]

He's a troll. Although it's often fun to feed a troll, I think naughty step is far more appropriate in this particular instance

I think his repetitive labeling of other people as idiots is trolling, but I think aside from that he really is just this dumb. Frustration causes him to lash out, but he's unable to reflect on his own competence, or more specifically, lack thereof.

 

[*SD*]

He's a troll. Although it's often fun to feed a troll, I think naughty step is far more appropriate in this particular instance

I think his repetitive labeling of other people as idiots is trolling, but I think aside from that he really is just this dumb. Frustration causes him to lash out, but he's unable to reflect on his own competence, or more specifically, lack thereof.

Unfortunately I'm unable to share your view here. This guy is even more incompetent than Jason Burns. Many of the same symptoms, I grant you, but given the ultimatum I'd opt for a conversation with Jason any day over this poster. There were at least times (albeit infrequent) when Jason would at least appear to understand a counter-point. I actually chatted with the guy, many times, in fact.

Mr Jump is either a troll, or far surpasses even Mr Burns in his achievements in sheer incompetence.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Sorry, I don't know who Jason Burns is.

Edit: for clarity, I know he has some sticky threads dedicated to him, but they were all already old when I joined the forum and I never read them.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Thank you, SD.

Regarding his issues with definitions, it's possibly due to English not being his first language - most probably Spanish.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[*SD*]

Sorry, I don't know who Jason Burns is.

Edit: for clarity, I know he has some sticky threads dedicated to him, but they were all already old when I joined the forum and I never read them.

You should, they're a real treat! An intellectual feast! Well ok maybe not that but they're good entertainment

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Sorry, I don't know who Jason Burns is.

Edit: for clarity, I know he has some sticky threads dedicated to him, but they were all already old when I joined the forum and I never read them.

You should, they're a real treat! An intellectual feast! Well ok maybe not that but they're good entertainment

He was clearly someone with mental health problems.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Sparhafoc]

Regarding his issues with definitions, it's possibly due to English not being his first language - most probably Spanish.

Who? TJump?

In the OP, he wrote...

These are my original arguments, which I hope to use to find opportunities to do public debates with theists; check out my YouTube channel for more:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHXrvsK33VUEcpa4Ar0c0Sg

Assuming it's his YT channel, then he sounds American to me.

 

[*SD*]

He was clearly someone with mental health problems.

Yeah. He's still going though, I drop in on his channel every so often just to see if he's still around. It's nice to see that he's ok and doing well. Obviously I think he's wrong about almost everything but I wish no ill on the guy. He (for the most part) keeps his comment section closed these days. I wouldn't be interested in commenting there anyway, the main thing is he's doing ok.

ED - to fix quote tags.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Regarding his issues with definitions, it's possibly due to English not being his first language - most probably Spanish.

Who? TJump?

In the OP, he wrote...

These are my original arguments, which I hope to use to find opportunities to do public debates with theists; check out my YouTube channel for more:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHXrvsK33VUEcpa4Ar0c0Sg

Assuming it's his YT channel, then he sounds American to me.

Strange - just that his spelling sometimes turns into what looks like Spanish renditions of the words.

Having said that, the image on his Twitter accounts does not suggest he's of Spanish descent.

Kindest regards,

James

Kindest regards,

James

 

[back]

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

Granted, it would be independent of any opinion (Human, Alien, Cow etc.)

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

That would be a “hole” in my definition. But again this is just semantics, who cares how I define absolute truth, it is not relevant.

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

It would be objectively false,
Today we think that Pluto is smaller than earth, and we consider that an objective truth. If later research shows that Pluto is bigger that the earth then we could say that we where objectively wrong.

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?

The point is that the cup is ether real or an illusion, whatever the answer is would be objectively true. Whether if the cup is real or not is not dependent on your subjective opinion.

If you say that the cup is real and I say that the cup is an illusion then one of us would be correct and the other one would be wrong.

If you say that the Cup is nice, and I say that the cup is horrible it would be just a matter of personal opinion, none of us would be wrong.

If not gods opinion, what are they based on?

they are a manifestation of Gods nature

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

Because your explanation doesn’t account for moral responsibility + the fact that I would argue that we have other independent arguments for God.

Yes i believe that morality being the result of evolution has evidential support, where morality being objective does not. .

That is the whole point of premise 1 in the moral argument. Those who agree with you grant premise 1

 

[TJump]

That would be a “hole” in my definition. But again this is just semantics, who cares how I define absolute truth, it is not relevant.

Yes this is semantics, but the reason i am asking is because it seems based on the answers to my subsequent question that you define objective as the absolute irrefutable truth.

(Absolute irrefutable truth as in can't be false but we just don't know it, i do not mean absolute as in true at every point in time)

If not gods opinion, what are they [OMV] based on?

they are a manifestation of Gods nature

ok, then in pantheism OMV's are a manifestation of Pantheism's nature.

Because your explanation doesn’t account for moral responsibility + the fact that I would argue that we have other independent arguments for God.

How does god account for moral responsibility?

Manifestation of Gods nature? If so moral responsibility moral responsibility is a manifestation of Pantheism's nature. (if not ignore this line)

I can show all those arguments work for pantheism equally as well as they do for theism.

So it seems both those reasons work equally for pantheism and theism, so unless you can provide a reason theisms explanation is better than they are both equally plausible.

That is the whole point of premise 1 in the moral argument. Those who agree with you grant premise 1

P1 does not mention evolution. It just says without god there is no OMV. This is clearly false as i have demonstrated with pantheism.

Evolution is an unrelated topic.