Best Atheist arguments you probably haven't heard before

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

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

What exactly is "Pantheism's nature"?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[TJump]

Greetings,
What exactly is "Pantheism's nature"?

Im just copying the logic he is using to solve the problem....... so i would ask What exactly is "God nature"? and copy that answer.

Or i could go with super law of nature like gravity or something, but this is all ad hoc, im not actually arguing for pantheism. Im just demonstrating the same arguments and reasoning theist use applies to any explanation we can make up i.e. pantheism or pastafarianism (spaghetti monster).... therefore they are not evidence of theism, they are just made up ad hoc reasoning.

 

[Sparhafoc]

What exactly is "Pantheism's nature"?

Ooh oooh ohhhh! I know... apples... no wait, atheists.... no idiots... wait...

 

[TJump]

This address all pointless definition arguments raised in all past 23 pages:

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.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

This address all pointless definition arguments raised in all past 23 pages:

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.

As I've said before, atheists don't believe in the universe or apples - they accept their existence, nothing more.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[TJump]

As I've said before, atheists don't believe in the universe or apples - they accept their existence, nothing more.

As i have said before, you an idiot.... Gj repeating exactly what i said with a different word and saying its not the same thing.

Google 'accept definition'

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.............

Google 'believe in'
phrasal verb of believe
1.
have faith in the truth or existence of.

 

[Gnug215]

Hi.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

As I've said before, atheists don't believe in the universe or apples - they accept their existence, nothing more.

As i have said before, you an idiot.... Gj repeating exactly what i said with a different word and saying its not the same thing.

Google 'accept definition'

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.............

Google 'believe in'
phrasal verb of believe
1.
have faith in the truth or existence of.

That's all well and good - however, your earlier examples of "God = apple" made it appear that you were talking about belief, as in a religious one, not merely accepting the existence of something, which doesn't entail religious belief.

Why don't you say "atheists accept the existence of" instead of "atheists believe in" when referring to the universe or apples? Can't you see that it's likely to cause confusion?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[TJump]

That's all well and good - however, your earlier examples of "God = apple" made it appear that you were talking about belief, as in a religious one, not merely accepting the existence of something, which doesn't entail religious belief.

How are you so bad at understanding words?

When i said God = apple, i meant that i am defining the word God to mean a literal physical apple. Atheist believe in physical apples; Contradiction? No... because the God atheist don't believe in has a different definition than a physical apple, implying that calling the universe a God doesn't make an atheist not an atheist just like calling an a physical apple god doesn't make an atheist not an atheist for believing in (the existence of) the apple/universe..

..............How are you so bad at understanding words?

Why don't you say "atheists accept the existence of" instead of "atheists believe in" when referring to the universe or apples? Can't you see that it's likely to cause confusion?

Because those are synonyms, they literally mean the same thing... your inability to understand unless i phrase it using 1 set of words which mean the exact same thing as the other set of words i used, is not a problem i can solve.

 

[Gnug215]

Do you believe you should stay here?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

That's all well and good - however, your earlier examples of "God = apple" made it appear that you were talking about belief, as in a religious one, not merely accepting the existence of something, which doesn't entail religious belief.

How are you so bad at understanding words?

When i said God = apple, i meant that i am defining the word God to mean a literal physical apple. Atheist believe in physical apples; Contradiction? No... because the God atheist don't believe in has a different definition than a physical apple, implying that calling the universe a God doesn't make an atheist not an atheist just like calling an a physical apple god doesn't make an atheist not an atheist for believing in (the existence of) the apple/universe..

..............How are you so bad at understanding words?

You're playing pick'n'mix with words and their usage.

If you're defining the word "God" to mean "apple", then claiming that atheists believe in (physical) apples, this doesn't change the fact that you're saying that atheists believe in God.

Equally defining the word "God" to mean "universe", whilst claiming that atheists don't stop being atheists by believing in the universe, is a contradiction in terms.

In pantheism, God and the universe are synonyms - therefore, pantheists believe that the universe is God. In the context of pantheism, there is a distinction between saying that, "atheists believe in the existence of the universe" (no religious/spiritual connotations), and, "atheists believe in the universe" (religious/spiritual connotations).

Do you understand this?

Why don't you say "atheists accept the existence of" instead of "atheists believe in" when referring to the universe or apples? Can't you see that it's likely to cause confusion?

Because those are synonyms, they literally mean the same thing... your inability to understand unless i phrase it using 1 set of words which mean the exact same thing as the other set of words i used, is not a problem i can solve.

As I explain above, they have different connotations.

Your usage - like your definitions of words, such as "pantheism", etc - is confused, and confusing.

Why don't you be more careful with how you phrase things?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[TJump]

You're playing pick'n'mix with words and their usage.

If you're defining the word "God" to mean "apple", then claiming that atheists believe in (physical) apples, this doesn't change the fact that you're saying that atheists believe in God.

Equally defining the word "God" to mean "universe", whilst claiming that atheists don't stop being atheists by believing in the universe, is a contradiction in terms.

In pantheism, God and the universe are synonyms - therefore, pantheists believe that the universe is God. In the context of pantheism, there is a distinction between saying that, "atheists believe in the existence of the universe" (no religious/spiritual connotations), and, "atheists believe in the universe" (religious/spiritual connotations).

Do you understand this?

No, i don't understand the logic you are using to come to this conclusion.....

For an atheist a God is an all powerful being of some kind (doesn't matter what the actual definition is, just go with it for the sake of the argument)

If i am an appleist, i define this apple i am holding as God, however i am NOT saying this apple is all powerful, a being or supernatural at all, i'm just calling this physical natural apple God.

The atheist may belief in the physical apple i call God, but the atheist does not believe the apple is a all powerful being of some kind.... so they are still an atheist,, do you understand the logic? Atheist believe in the thing i call God, which by their definition is NOT a God....

So calling the physical natural universe a God is the EXACT SAME as calling an apple God. Atheist believe in (the existence of) both the apple and the universe, but they are still atheist because NEITHER or those are all powerful beings of some kind.

Your usage - like your definitions of words, such as "pantheism", etc - is confused, and confusing.

Why don't you be more careful with how you phrase things?

Why cant you be more careful with how you interpret things?......... if leroy can understand what i said, you should be able to.

Try using the principle of charity:
In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity or charitable interpretation requires interpreting a speaker's statements in the most rational way possible and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation.[1] In its narrowest sense, the goal of this methodological principle is to avoid attributing irrationality, logical fallacies, or falsehoods to the others' statements, when a coherent, rational interpretation of the statements is available. According to Simon Blackburn[2] "it constrains the interpreter to maximize the truth or rationality in the subject's sayings."

This is also known as Steelmaning someones argument, the opposite of strawmanning.... what you keep doing it attacking a strawman which is your uncharitable interpretation.

 

[*SD*]

Do you believe you should stay here?

Only if the implication of 'leaving' would mean 'staying'

Because TJump gets to define words to mean whatever the hell he wants them to mean. If you reject this then you, too - are an idiot

 

[Sparhafoc]

This address all pointless definition arguments raised in all past 23 pages:

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

More and more, I am reading TJump's post in my head with Donald Trump's voice.

Try it. It kinda makes things fall into place

 

[Sparhafoc]

Why cant you be more careful with how you interpret things?......... if leroy can understand what i said, you should be able to.

Hilarious.

The fact that LEROY understands and agrees with you should actually give you pause for thought and make you reconsider the certitude with which you robotically insist on your correctness.

There's no one less credible here than LEROY, so your yardstick falls a few miles short of desirable standards.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Try using the principle of charity:

Due to the principle of charity, anyone incapable of understanding this is either disingenuous or an idiot.

 

[*SD*]

A potentially disingenuous idiot!

 

[australopithecus]

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

You, Sir, can wind your neck in and drop the fucking attitude.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

You're playing pick'n'mix with words and their usage.

If you're defining the word "God" to mean "apple", then claiming that atheists believe in (physical) apples, this doesn't change the fact that you're saying that atheists believe in God.

Equally defining the word "God" to mean "universe", whilst claiming that atheists don't stop being atheists by believing in the universe, is a contradiction in terms.

In pantheism, God and the universe are synonyms - therefore, pantheists believe that the universe is God. In the context of pantheism, there is a distinction between saying that, "atheists believe in the existence of the universe" (no religious/spiritual connotations), and, "atheists believe in the universe" (religious/spiritual connotations).

Do you understand this?

No, i don't understand the logic you are using to come to this conclusion.....

For an atheist a God is an all powerful being of some kind (doesn't matter what the actual definition is, just go with it for the sake of the argument)

If i am an appleist, i define this apple i am holding as God, however i am NOT saying this apple is all powerful, a being or supernatural at all, i'm just calling this physical natural apple God.

The atheist may belief in the physical apple i call God, but the atheist does not believe the apple is a all powerful being of some kind.... so they are still an atheist,, do you understand the logic? Atheist believe in the thing i call God, which by their definition is NOT a God....

So calling the physical natural universe a God is the EXACT SAME as calling an apple God. Atheist believe in (the existence of) both the apple and the universe, but they are still atheist because NEITHER or those are all powerful beings of some kind.

My point is that there is a critical difference between saying "believe in" and "believe in the existence of" something.

As I've explained already, one has religious/spiritual connotations, the other does not. One generally applies the first to any form of theist/deist, whilst the latter would be applied to atheists and/or situations where "believe" is not being used to refer to religious and/or spiritual perspectives.

Rather than saying, "pantheists believe in the existence of the universe", one would say, "pantheists believe in the universe", because they equate the universe with God - for pantheists, God is the universe/the universe is God.

Conversely, rather than saying, "atheists believe in the universe", one would say, "atheists believe in the existence of the universe", for similar reasons.

Your usage - like your definitions of words, such as "pantheism", etc - is confused, and confusing.

Why don't you be more careful with how you phrase things?

Why cant you be more careful with how you interpret things?......... if leroy can understand what i said, you should be able to.

Your confused use of language is undoubtedly due to your confusion over the meanings of words, such as confusing the meanings of atheism and pantheism so that - to you - they mean the same thing.

Try using the principle of charity:
In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity or charitable interpretation requires interpreting a speaker's statements in the most rational way possible and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation.[1] In its narrowest sense, the goal of this methodological principle is to avoid attributing irrationality, logical fallacies, or falsehoods to the others' statements, when a coherent, rational interpretation of the statements is available. According to Simon Blackburn[2] "it constrains the interpreter to maximize the truth or rationality in the subject's sayings."

This is also known as Steelmaning someones argument, the opposite of strawmanning.... what you keep doing it attacking a strawman which is your uncharitable interpretation.

My "uncharitable interpretation" is due to your confusion over the meaning of words and/or your attempt to redefine words so that they mean something they don't or even the opposite of what they mean.

It's you who is creating strawman definitions of words to lull theists into a false sense of equivalence with atheists to argue your case. This is disingenuous of you - I, along with others here, have been pulling you up on this.

If you can't argue your case as an atheist honestly without equating yourself with theists, you're not doing a very good job.

Your attempt to hide behind "the principle of charity" to protect yourself from valid criticism is a pointless tactic.

Perhaps you should be more charitable yourself to others - and yourself - by using the terms correctly, and making sure that your meaning is clear by not using ambiguous language.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[TJump]

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.

'believe in' can LITERALLY MEAN 'believe in the existence of'


I have talked with may apologists and philosophers, smart people have no difficulty understanding anything i said... problem is definitely with you.