Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Best Atheist arguments you probably haven't heard before

Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  Page 10 of 26
 [ 506 posts ] 
Best Atheist arguments you probably haven't heard before
Author Message
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 3172Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Best Atheist arguments you probably haven't heard before

Greetings,

And ...

Sparhafoc wrote:
TJump wrote:argument from ignorance fallacy.

What an autistic response. It's not even employing a modicum of discursive capacity, let alone any principle of charity.

And of course, it's not an argument from ignorance. Does TJump not discern the difference between say and mention?


TJump wrote:Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.

So teapots orbiting Mars?

Immaterial, invisible dragons in garages?

There can be no 'evidence of absence' there can only be absent evidence to warrant lending belief.

TJump doesn't understand the point of this - it's a blind regurgitation. The robust position to take in the absence of evidence is the null hypothesis - to consider the initial claim unjustified.

An absence of evidence does reflect on the claim because the claim must be made evident and cannot be accepted in the absence of evidence.

Any other path leads to madness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

In inferential statistics, the term "null hypothesis" is a general statement or default position that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena, or no association among groups.[1] Testing (accepting, approving / rejecting, disproving) the null hypothesis—and thus concluding that there are / there are not grounds for believing that there is a relationship between two phenomena (e.g. that a potential treatment has a measurable effect)—is a central task in the modern practice of science


And the null hypothesis is generally considered to be true unless evidence is shown to contradict it.


TJump wrote:The supernatural and god are not the same thing. There can be evidence of either. And even if there could not that would not be evidence they do not exist, argument from ignorance fallacy.

You are confusing epistemology with ontology.

Again, a completely blank response.

If one of God's characteristics is 'supernatural' and yet supernatural cannot be shown to exist, then that does impact on the claim of God's existence.

I love how TJump uses words with no apparent comprehension of their meaning. As if ontology isn't related to epistemology.

17th Century wrote:I think therefore I am.


20th Century wrote:we do not assume there is a self to begin with. Self is not presupposed as a stuff out of which the world arises. Rather, the self arises in the world


TJump wrote:Wrong, your assuming pantheists are grounding their belief in modern physics... these are two unrelated positions.

No such assumption is apparent. Rather, this is explicitly what can be said as universal to pantheistic belief: that God and the universe are one, and that there is nothing external to God.


TJump wrote:PN? Philosophical naturalism? philosophical naturalism is the same things as metaphysical natural which is a different position (ontological) from methodological naturalism (epistemological).... they fact they are different was the entire point of listing them...

You misused them and don't understand these terms either. It's like whack-a-mole.

Really, what does this even mean: philosophical naturalism is the same things as metaphysical natural


TJump wrote:i dont see a difference between God and god, just caps out of habit.

God is the Judeo-Christian specific, god is a category of postulated entities.

Defeating the specific is easy; the grounds for denying it are given in the same context in which it is postulated.
The category of gods, on the other hand, is not well defined, so it is impossible ever to actually contend with it as the definition can simply move ever onward, subsuming even arguments against the category. Mars orbiting teapots.


TJump wrote:Again my point was proven Q.E.D.

Proof lol
QED lol

Really, his argument was shown categorically wrong.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Tue Jun 19, 2018 6:14 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2434Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Best Atheist arguments you probably haven't heard before

thenexttodie wrote:
thenexttodie wrote:I know what you think, Spahafoc. Because of your rebellion against God. You are all the same. This entire forum is evidence of this.


Sparhafoc wrote:Your first sentence is provably wrong because not only do you not know what I think,.


Well we can take this step by step, if you like.


We're going to take 'this' step by step where you show you know what I think?

Well then, the very first thing you must know right now is that I think that's daft.


thenexttodie wrote:I know that you think it is good to kill people who have not been convicted of any crime and that it is good to keep people alive who are guilty of murder.


Wrong on both accounts, ergo not the best start for your mind-reading party trick, is it?


thenexttodie wrote:Is there anything you would like to say about this?


Well yes: wrong


thenexttodie wrote:How do you think I know this?


Well, you don't "know" it - you just think it. The reason you think it is that you are employing your prejudices to dictate reality rather than encountering reality and letting it inform you. It's a standard Creationist practice.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Tue Jun 19, 2018 6:14 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2434Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Best Atheist arguments you probably haven't heard before

Well James, welcome to the club!

We have goat jerkie and sugar cane smoothies.

Probably best if we start thinking about expansion, as it seems likely everyone who converses with TJump's going to find themselves in these stone walls.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Tue Jun 19, 2018 6:20 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2434Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Best Atheist arguments you probably haven't heard before

Incidentally, as thenexttodie's game of Pin Your Prejudice On The Heathen is clearly off-topic here, I would be grateful if the mods could move it to its own thread where thenexttodie won't get... distracted.

I know thenexttodie won't mind because it says so in the Bhagavad Gita.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Tue Jun 19, 2018 6:24 pm
TJumpPosts: 113Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:20 am Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Best Atheist arguments you probably haven't heard before

Dragan Glas wrote:Greetings,

And ...


I'm not interested in the ramblings of an idiot, if you dont realize why every line of what he said is obviously false, then ur not on my intellectual level and speaking with you is a waste of my time, your blocked.
Tue Jun 19, 2018 7:12 pm
WarKChat ModeratorUser avatarPosts: 1211Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 9:59 am Gender: Tree

Post Re: Best Atheist arguments you probably haven't heard before

TJump wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:Greetings,

And ...


I'm not interested in the ramblings of an idiot, if you dont realize why every line of what he said is obviously false, then ur not on my intellectual level and speaking with you is a waste of my time, your blocked.


TJump, I'm not sure you're aware of this but your blocking them means only that you can't read their posts. All other users can read their posts.

Guys, is there a fallacy like argumentum ad censorum (yes my Latin is awesome). There has to be, it's so common on YT for creationists, theists and the like to just block and ignore counter arguments.
Did you see that ludicrous display last night?
Tue Jun 19, 2018 8:20 pm
TJumpPosts: 113Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:20 am Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Best Atheist arguments you probably haven't heard before

WarK wrote:TJump, I'm not sure you're aware of this but your blocking them means only that you can't read their posts. All other users can read their posts.


Yes i am aware.

WarK wrote:Guys, is there a fallacy like argumentum ad censorum (yes my Latin is awesome). There has to be, it's so common on YT for creationists, theists and the like to just block and ignore counter arguments.


No, fallacies are either flawed formal or informal arguments. Blocking someone isn't an argument.
Tue Jun 19, 2018 9:04 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 3172Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Best Atheist arguments you probably haven't heard before

Greetings,

This is the first time I've ever been blocked by anyone on any media.

Psychological Strain Behind Blocking Someone On Social Media wrote:Blocking should be used for people who are being perceived as threats, not for people who "hurt your feelings."

Inside the Mind of an Internet Troll - the 100+ types of troll is also interesting. It would seem he's too used to blocking people on his YT channel, and is merely using LoR as an extension of that.

The Psychology Of Cyberspace, is a interesting series of articles - more listed at the bottom - about the pros and cons of using cyberspace in education.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Tue Jun 19, 2018 10:14 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3468Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Best Atheist arguments you probably haven't heard before

leroy wrote:As for your irrelevant comment on the Christian God, I openly admit that according to the bible, God has done things that I personally would consider wrong, and I openly admit that you can make a valid argument against the validity of the bible on the bases of all the stuff that seems to be morally wrong.


Good to know that dandan/leroy is more moral then the god he worships. One has to wonder why he would worship a creature less moral then he?
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Wed Jun 20, 2018 12:50 am
YIM WWW
Steelmage99Posts: 197Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 9:43 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Best Atheist arguments you probably haven't heard before

TJump wrote:

Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.



It absolutely is, especially if evidence has repeatedly and honestly been sought after - but failed to materialize.

The absence of evidence is not absolute proof of absence - but it certainly points us to the conclusion of "absence", especially when the above conditions apply.
Blunder that theists make all the time;

Pretending to know what other people think.
Wed Jun 20, 2018 1:02 am
TJumpPosts: 113Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:20 am Gender: Time Lord

Post Re: Best Atheist arguments you probably haven't heard before

Steelmage99 wrote:It absolutely is, especially if evidence has repeatedly and honestly been sought after - but failed to materialize.

The absence of evidence is not absolute proof of absence - but it certainly points us to the conclusion of "absence", especially when the above conditions apply.


No you are confusing epistemology with ontology.

Absence of evidence is evidence you have no reason to believe it exists... it is NOT evidence the thing does not exist.

again that is an argument from ignorance fallacy. You cannot say there are no X's simply because you have not seen any every time you looked.

this is basic philosophy, the problem of induction and underdetermination.
Wed Jun 20, 2018 2:29 am
SparhafocPosts: 2434Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Best Atheist arguments you probably haven't heard before

TJump wrote:
Steelmage99 wrote:It absolutely is, especially if evidence has repeatedly and honestly been sought after - but failed to materialize.

The absence of evidence is not absolute proof of absence - but it certainly points us to the conclusion of "absence", especially when the above conditions apply.


No you are confusing epistemology with ontology.

Absence of evidence is evidence you have no reason to believe it exists... it is NOT evidence the thing does not exist.

again that is an argument from ignorance fallacy. You cannot say there are no X's simply because you have not seen any every time you looked.

this is basic philosophy, the problem of induction and underdetermination.



This is how TJump protects his bad ideas from being destroyed.

Blocking people who can show his ideas wrong.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Wed Jun 20, 2018 2:56 am
SparhafocPosts: 2434Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Best Atheist arguments you probably haven't heard before

Dragan Glas wrote:Greetings,

This is the first time I've ever been blocked by anyone on any media.


Being unfailingly polite is very rude, dontcha know?

Goat jerkie?
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Wed Jun 20, 2018 2:57 am
SparhafocPosts: 2434Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Best Atheist arguments you probably haven't heard before

WarK wrote:
TJump wrote:
I'm not interested in the ramblings of an idiot, if you dont realize why every line of what he said is obviously false, then ur not on my intellectual level and speaking with you is a waste of my time, your blocked.


TJump, I'm not sure you're aware of this but your blocking them means only that you can't read their posts. All other users can read their posts.

Guys, is there a fallacy like argumentum ad censorum (yes my Latin is awesome). There has to be, it's so common on YT for creationists, theists and the like to just block and ignore counter arguments.



https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Appeal_to_censorship

An appeal to censorship occurs when dissenting ideas are removed or silenced in order to make a statement appear unanswered, and thus more probably true. The idea comes down to "I'm correct because nobody else disagrees (because I removed all dissent)". Whether or not this is an acceptable practice depends entirely on the mission of the website in question and the way in which the comments are presented. The deletion of constructive and on-topic comments is particularly disingenuous when the site in question claims to value freedom of speech.

Deletion of dissenting views may give the original article a false sense of validity, in that to the casual user, it appears that no one has been able to offer valid criticism.


I think it's particularly disingenuous on this specific website given that one of its founding principles was to combat the rise of censorship online.

About wrote:Initially, the site was set up as a discussion forum to combat a plague of censorship against proponents of science and scepticism, orchestrated by a number of religious YouTube us


Out of interest, while the website obviously has a Foe button to allow people to block the annoying (or those with arguments too difficult to defeat, apparently) how would the website deal with someone who joins, blocks everyone, and uses the site as their free blog?
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Wed Jun 20, 2018 3:04 am
SparhafocPosts: 2434Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Best Atheist arguments you probably haven't heard before

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias

A cognitive bias is a systematic pattern of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment.[1] Individuals create their own "subjective social reality" from their perception of the input. An individual's construction of social reality, not the objective input, may dictate their behaviour in the social world.[2] Thus, cognitive biases may sometimes lead to perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgment, illogical interpretation, or what is broadly called irrationality.



I submit that a good example of this is publicly abusing particular people (and seeing that as justified regardless of their civility to you) then censoring them as if they'd committed some injustice against you.

As per Dragan Glas' quote:

Blocking should be used for people who are being perceived as threats, not for people who "hurt your feelings."


It is worth considering from another angle: TJump may mistakenly perceive us as threats to himself or his credibility rather than to his ideas.

TJump seems somewhat self-occupied. My simple guess is that having the power to block on Youtube has rather gone to his head; he's certainly brought the tone of Youtube to this little slice of the internet.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Wed Jun 20, 2018 3:20 am
SparhafocPosts: 2434Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: Best Atheist arguments you probably haven't heard before

Steelmage99 wrote:
TJump wrote:

Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.



It absolutely is, especially if evidence has repeatedly and honestly been sought after - but failed to materialize.

The absence of evidence is not absolute proof of absence - but it certainly points us to the conclusion of "absence", especially when the above conditions apply.




Try asking TJump how one goes about divining an ontology in the absence of epistemology.

I think this will show he's regurgitating things he's heard without really understanding the words he's using. Varnish, but only microns deep.

Ontology is the way things are, and epistemology is how the fuck we know that in the first place! ;) Consequently, ontology can and will be affected by epistemological processes; what constitutes knowledge and how that knowledge is validated.

Best be prepared to be blocked, though! ;)
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Wed Jun 20, 2018 3:28 am
Steelmage99Posts: 197Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 9:43 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Best Atheist arguments you probably haven't heard before

TJump wrote:
No you are confusing epistemology with ontology.

Absence of evidence is evidence you have no reason to believe it exists... it is NOT evidence the thing does not exist.

again that is an argument from ignorance fallacy. You cannot say there are no X's simply because you have not seen any every time you looked.

this is basic philosophy, the problem of induction and underdetermination.


I am not saying that X doesn't exist.
I am saying that every time we conduct an experiment (in the broad sense of the word) that fails it's stated goal of demonstrating X, we move a bit further towards "doesn't exist" on a spectrum and a bit away from "exists".

I am fully cognisant of the fact that X can (probably) never be proven 100% not to exist.

I am simply being pragmatic and practical.
Blunder that theists make all the time;

Pretending to know what other people think.
Wed Jun 20, 2018 5:45 am
*SD*User avatarPosts: 287Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 1:00 amLocation: Wales, UK Gender: Male

Post Re: Best Atheist arguments you probably haven't heard before

TJump wrote:then ur not on my intellectual level and speaking with you is a waste of my time, your blocked


It's You're not ur

It's You're not your

And you want to compare intellectual cock measurements with other members?

TJump wrote:Blocking someone isn't an argument


No shit. If you keep blocking people then who are you going to have this conversation (which you started) with? C'mon, man. Blocking doesn't get anyone anywhere and the conversation (which, again - you started) will just continue without you. Surely that's not what you want?
Image
Wed Jun 20, 2018 11:42 am
WWW
*SD*User avatarPosts: 287Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 1:00 amLocation: Wales, UK Gender: Male

Post Re: Best Atheist arguments you probably haven't heard before

TNTD wrote:I know what you think, Spahafoc. Because of your rebellion against God. You are all the same. This entire forum is evidence of this


You don't know what he thinks any more than you know what I think. I don't know if Spar believes in God or not, because I've never asked him. As for me, although you didn't address me I'll respond to you anyway - I don't believe in God. You can tell me I do if you like, but it won't change the fact that I don't. So I can't really 'rebel' against an entity I don't believe even exists. And this forum is evidence of no such thing.

I mean, are you really being serious here or just trolling?
Image
Wed Jun 20, 2018 11:48 am
WWW
*SD*User avatarPosts: 287Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 1:00 amLocation: Wales, UK Gender: Male

Post Re: Best Atheist arguments you probably haven't heard before

TJump wrote:
Steelmage99 wrote:It absolutely is, especially if evidence has repeatedly and honestly been sought after - but failed to materialize.

The absence of evidence is not absolute proof of absence - but it certainly points us to the conclusion of "absence", especially when the above conditions apply.


No you are confusing epistemology with ontology.

Absence of evidence is evidence you have no reason to believe it exists... it is NOT evidence the thing does not exist.

again that is an argument from ignorance fallacy. You cannot say there are no X's simply because you have not seen any every time you looked.

this is basic philosophy, the problem of induction and underdetermination.


This is a bit weird. Although I have heard it argued this way before.

Absence of evidence is, in a practical and realistic sense, evidence of absence. Assuming that if proposition X we're true, evidence should be found for it.

The claim 'There is a real live elephant on my desk' is one we should be able to find evidence for, if it is in fact true. If you examine my desk, see no elephant, touch the desk and feel no elephant, weigh the desk and find no disproportionate weight, sprawl on the desk and ascertain that the space is unoccupied by anything detectable even slightly on par with an elephant - you have found no evidence for an elephant being on my desk. From that, it is quite reasonable to conclude that there is no elephant.

With this in mind, I submit that it is perfectly reasonable to rule out any elephant being on that desk, and further that it is also perfectly reasonable to operate in this way.

If you're going to go with 'just because you can't find evidence for it doesn't mean it's not there' then I guess you can if you want, but I don't know where that leaves you in any practical sense.

So for claims where evidence could reasonably be expected, the statement 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' does not hold true.
Image
Wed Jun 20, 2018 12:30 pm
WWW
PreviousNext
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  Page 10 of 26
 [ 506 posts ] 
Return to Religion & Irreligion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests