Best Atheist arguments you probably haven't heard before

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

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'

None of which changes the fact of what I said: your usage of terms is confused and confusing. It is equivocation.

Either it's due to a lack of care on the proper use of language or it is a deliberate attempt to confuse others.

In either case, this does not speak well of your intentions.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[TJump]

Either it's due to a lack of care on the proper use of language or it is a deliberate attempt to confuse others.

In either case, this does not speak well of your intentions.

If you cannot understand colloquialisms, then the problem is with you.

I already admitted, i'm not going to take the time to be particular because arguing definitions is not relevant to my argument........ my intention is talking about the argument.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Either it's due to a lack of care on the proper use of language or it is a deliberate attempt to confuse others.

In either case, this does not speak well of your intentions.

If you cannot understand colloquialisms, then the problem is with you.

I already admitted, i'm not going to take the time to be particular because arguing definitions is not relevant to my argument........ my intention is talking about the argument.

Then why bother defining - never mind, re-defining - definitions?

As I said in a earlier post, you don't need to discuss - or even mention - definitions with theists in order to argue that empiric claims require empiric evidence, conceptual claims require conceptual evidence.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[TJump]

Then why bother defining - never mind, re-defining - definitions?

As I said in a earlier post, you don't need to discuss - or even mention - definitions with theists in order to argue that empiric claims require empiric evidence, conceptual claims require conceptual evidence.

I dont... the only people who dont understand the definitions im using are the people on this forum.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Then why bother defining - never mind, re-defining - definitions?

As I said in a earlier post, you don't need to discuss - or even mention - definitions with theists in order to argue that empiric claims require empiric evidence, conceptual claims require conceptual evidence.

I dont... the only people who dont understand the definitions im using are the people on this forum.

Because they are wrong and, as a result, muddy the waters.

If you can't make your case using the correct definitions, then either there's something wrong with your case or, with all due respect, you're not up to the task.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[TJump]

Because they are wrong and, as a result, muddy the waters.

If you can't make your case using the correct definitions, then either there's something wrong with your case or, with all due respect, you're not up to the task.

the only people who dont understand the definitions im using are the people on this forum.

therefore the people in this forum are the problem

Also all my definitions are correct.

 

[australopithecus]

Bored now. If this doesn’t go any further than a circle jerk about definitions I’m locking.

 

[TJump]

Bored now. If this doesn’t go any further than a circle jerk about definitions I’m locking.

Hey that's exactly what i said...... 'back'/Leroy is actually making valid points and engaging with the argument its just the defintion trolls who are the problem.

 

[australopithecus]

If everyone else other than the Leroy (who isn’t really a good benchmark to measure ideas against) has an issue with your definitions, perhaps it’s the definitions that are faulty?

 

[TJump]

If everyone else other than the Leroy (who isn’t really a good benchmark to measure ideas against) has an issue with your definitions, perhaps it’s the definitions that are faulty?

Feel free to give examples.

There have been three debated definitions:

1. Atheism is a lack of belief.
'py.. something' said, then christians are atheists... I said yes (i gave dawkins quote). he said that's a contradiction, i said no its not, christians are partial atheists bcuz they don't believe in many gods (zeus) as opposed total atheists who believe in no gods.

2. naturalistic pantheists are atheists
'S something' said that's a contradiction because atheist by definition don't believe in a god and pantheists believe everything is god. As i said, calling the natural universe a God is not a contradiction with atheism just like calling a physical apple a god isn't a contradiction with atheism.

3. 'believe in' can mean 'believe in the existence of'
'Dragon Glas' said they mean something different.... 'to believe in' is a colloquialism for 'believe in the existence of' Naturalistic pantheists do not have faith in the universe, they simply believe in the existence of the universe.

Where is the problem with my definition? Maybe the problem isn't with me...

 

[Sparhafoc]

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

It's flat out amusing that this sentence comes at the end of this post:

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'

1) As has been explained to you: you're the one using equivocation - no one else is.

2) Atheist =/= naturalist - just because you assert this is so, it doesn't make it so. While not a complete guide, the fact we have two different words should give you some indication that they aren't directly synonymous. In this case, a naturalist CAN believe in gods as they're not necessarily contradictory positions, and an atheist can believe in some spiritualistic wooly bollocks that contradicts naturalism.

3) Theists are not methodological naturalists. Can a theist be a methodological naturalist? Yes. Are theists methodological naturalists? No.

4) Pantheists aren't atheists. You've had this explained to you in spades.

5) Christians are not atheists - it was really silly the first dozen times you asserted this, and it's only becoming more and more obtuse every time you double down on it. There is no such thing as 'partial atheism'. The 'a' prefix is expressly used as a NEGATION of the following term.

As such, abiotic cannot mean 'partially biotic', asymptomatic cannot mean 'partially symptomatic', acellular cannot mean 'partially cellular'. You are not just a little bit wrong, you are totally and utterly wrong and you are using words antithetical to their meaning and attempting to prescribe, through abusive, obnoxious authority, this erroneous conflation.

6) God is not apple. It is not acceptable in any form of discourse. It is just stupid, really, really stupid. But that has not stopped you repeating this. Further, you say 'God = apple, but atheists believe in apples' - and so YOU are committing an equivocation fallacy where you attempt to use the manufactured meaning to present a dichotomy that really doesn't exist.

7) Replacing apple with universe solves nothing - what 'solves' the problem is refusing to allow such nonsense to take place.

8) Playing with words is fun. But it has to be consensual, or you're just playing with yourself... in public.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Either it's due to a lack of care on the proper use of language or it is a deliberate attempt to confuse others.

In either case, this does not speak well of your intentions.

If you cannot understand colloquialisms, then the problem is with you.

I already admitted, i'm not going to take the time to be particular because arguing definitions is not relevant to my argument........ my intention is talking about the argument.

No, the problem is wholly with you.

It's also bullshit that you're interested in talking about the argument as can be seen by the dozens of posts you've made trying to force through your nonsensical definitions.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Then why bother defining - never mind, re-defining - definitions?

As I said in a earlier post, you don't need to discuss - or even mention - definitions with theists in order to argue that empiric claims require empiric evidence, conceptual claims require conceptual evidence.

I dont... the only people who dont understand the definitions im using are the people on this forum.

Learn how language works.

Want your own private language?

Fine.

Just don't expect to be able to communicate with anyone.

 

[Sparhafoc]

If everyone else other than the Leroy (who isn’t really a good benchmark to measure ideas against) has an issue with your definitions, perhaps it’s the definitions that are faulty?

Feel free to give examples.

There have been three debated definitions:

1. Atheism is a lack of belief.
'py.. something' said, then christians are atheists... I said yes (i gave dawkins quote). he said that's a contradiction, i said no its not, christians are partial atheists bcuz they don't believe in many gods (zeus) as opposed total atheists who believe in no gods.

2. naturalistic pantheists are atheists
'S something' said that's a contradiction because atheist by definition don't believe in a god and pantheists believe everything is god. As i said, calling the natural universe a God is not a contradiction with atheism just like calling a physical apple a god isn't a contradiction with atheism.

3. 'believe in' can mean 'believe in the existence of'
'Dragon Glas' said they mean something different.... 'to believe in' is a colloquialism for 'believe in the existence of' Naturalistic pantheists do not have faith in the universe, they simply believe in the existence of the universe.

Where is the problem with my definition? Maybe the problem isn't with me...

Three debated definitions that TJump has employed an idiosyncratic version of, then abused people for rejecting those contrived definitions.

20 pages later, TJump's still trying to bully through his contrived definitions making the lie clear that he's not interested in debating definitions.

What he means is that he wants other people to stop contesting his claims.

 

[Sparhafoc]

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

I missed this from laughing at the notion that LEROY was a benchmark.

But the real point is that it's not other people's obligation to spend effort and energy finding a way to translate your erroneous claims into acceptable ones. It's your obligation to ensure that you present your ideas coherently.


Also, it's odd you refer to LEROY by that username rather than by the name you most frequently engaged with him 'back'... and yet you can't remember anyone else's name even though they only have one!


http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=187722#p187722

'py.. something' said,...

...

'S something' said...

 

[TJump]

7) Replacing apple with [universe] solves nothing - what 'solves' the problem is refusing to allow such nonsense to take place.

6) God is not [universe]. It is not acceptable in any form of discourse. It is just stupid, really, really stupid. But that has not stopped you repeating this. Further, you say 'God = [universe], but atheists believe in [universe]' - and so YOU are committing an equivocation fallacy where you attempt to use the manufactured meaning to present a dichotomy that really doesn't exist.

:FACEPALM:

exactly, there is no contradiction between atheism and pantheism because it's 'stupid' to call the universe god

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

7) Replacing apple with [universe] solves nothing - what 'solves' the problem is refusing to allow such nonsense to take place.

6) God is not [universe]. It is not acceptable in any form of discourse. It is just stupid, really, really stupid. But that has not stopped you repeating this. Further, you say 'God = [universe], but atheists believe in [universe]' - and so YOU are committing an equivocation fallacy where you attempt to use the manufactured meaning to present a dichotomy that really doesn't exist.

:FACEPALM:

exactly, there is no contradiction between atheism and pantheism because it's 'stupid' to call the universe god

Unless I missed it, where in the preceding 25 pages did you say or intimate this?

All you've been doing is equating atheism and pantheism, which is why we've been criticizing your equivocal definitions.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[TJump]

Greetings,

exactly, there is no contradiction between atheism and pantheism because it's 'stupid' to call the universe god

Unless I missed it, where in the preceding 25 pages did you say or intimate this?

All you've been doing is equating atheism and pantheism, which is why we've been criticizing your equivocal definitions.

Kindest regards,

James

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.

 

[Sparhafoc]

7) Replacing apple with [universe] solves nothing - what 'solves' the problem is refusing to allow such nonsense to take place.

6) God is not [universe]. It is not acceptable in any form of discourse. It is just stupid, really, really stupid. But that has not stopped you repeating this. Further, you say 'God = [universe], but atheists believe in [universe]' - and so YOU are committing an equivocation fallacy where you attempt to use the manufactured meaning to present a dichotomy that really doesn't exist.

:FACEPALM:

You've ignored dozens of replies in which I've debunked your contentions to a painfully embarrassing degree on your part, so you don't get to respond suddenly with 'facepalm'.

exactly, there is no contradiction between atheism and pantheism because it's 'stupid' to call the universe god

It's nothing to do with 'contradictions'; the problem has been explained to you sufficiently clearly that you cannot pretend you didn't read those posts so you don't have to respond to them

Finally, it's duplicitous to change the words of my post and then present it as a quotation of what I wrote.

I wrote:

6) God is not apple. It is not acceptable in any form of discourse. It is just stupid, really, really stupid. But that has not stopped you repeating this. Further, you say 'God = apple, but atheists believe in apples' - and so YOU are committing an equivocation fallacy where you attempt to use the manufactured meaning to present a dichotomy that really doesn't exist.

Please quote what I wrote if you want to respond to it - don't change it to suit your silly argument that's been shown wrong in the post you're replying to.

 

[Sparhafoc]

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

Robot: stop

Copying and pasting something you've already written and which has been contested performs nothing of value except to stonewall arguments that counter yours.

As already pointed out: this really is an equivocation fallacy.

You are hopping between two different definitions.

The fact that you made up one of those definitions just makes it worse.

Language is necessarily consensual. If you refuse to join in on the consensus, it's you who 'has a problem'.