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 6 of 26
 [ 506 posts ] 
Best Atheist arguments you probably haven't heard before
Author Message
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:
The problem is that God is said to exist outside space and time. As a "supernatural" entity it can do this since Nature comprises space-time continua, therefore in Naturalism, nothing can exist outside of space and time in the absolute sense.


Already addressed, space and time may not be the only modes of existence, there can possibly be other ways for things to exist that are ABSOLUTELY outside or independent of or without SPACE OR TIME

"nothing can exist outside of space and time in the absolute sense" <--- unless your omniscient this is an unjustified assertion, just like theists who claim nothing could have created a God.

Dragan Glas wrote:Getting theists to realize that the Big Bang isn't the beginning of everything is how we correct this misconception.



Yes and we can do that with the addition of one word , Naturalistic pantheism. Which is a far more efficient way then trying to explain quantum physics to them dont u think?
Sat Jun 16, 2018 8:27 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2629Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

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

TJump wrote:
Sparhafoc wrote:/scratchy head

Why the hostility?


i do not like debating definitions... it frustrates me to have such pointless irrelevant conversation that have nothing to do with my argument its a pointless waste of time.The natural ambiguity of language in linguistics means words dont have inherent meaning so you can use ad hoc reasoning to make any word mean anything you want.

I told you my defintion, and you posted the links justifying the definition, and then said "but what about this one example form 2k years ago where people believe something contradictory...." <--- this is ad hoc reasoning irrelevant to the argument.

My definition is correct, if you disagree your wrong.... even if i was wrong (which im not) you understand the definition im using which means my argument is the same regardless STOP WASTING MY TIME.



First of all, chill out. You make it sound like I've done something terrible, when all I've done is discuss on a discussion forum.

Secondly, all I see are more assertions on your part. Do you not hold yourself to the same standards you expect of others? You've made an assertion, you've told people to look it up to corroborate your argument, looking it up doesn't corroborate your argument but presumably you are basing your position on a source. Share the source, and you'll have met your burden.

Otherwise, it looks like your aggression is just a way of bulling past opposition to your assertion.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Jun 17, 2018 5:47 am
SparhafocPosts: 2629Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

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

Dragan Glas wrote:I'd disagree with Baltzly.

Although the Stoics acknowledged the existence of Nature spirits (gods within Nature), they held that these gods had no control over human destiny - that that was solely in the hands of ourselves.

Since Christianity absorbed Stoic philosophy, it's possible that he's referring to early (Stoic)-Christians.


I recall you forwarding this position before.

Out of interest, have you read Baltzly's Stoic Pantheism essay?

I've got it saved to read later today.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Jun 17, 2018 5:52 am
SparhafocPosts: 2629Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

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

My own source 'proves' me wrong....

Only, of course, it doesn't unless we engage in some selective editing.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/

12. Personal

...

It is clear that pantheistic systems which start from the theistic God which they then find to be all-inclusive, or Absolute Idealist systems which derive all reality from a spiritual principle, will find it easier to attribute something like personhood to the cosmos than will those which are more naturalistically motivated. But it is important to realise that not even the latter are wholly resistant to personhood.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Jun 17, 2018 5:55 am
TJumpPosts: 113Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:20 am Gender: Time Lord

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

Are you an idiot?

Read your own included line:

'But it is important to realise that not even the latter are wholly resistant to personhood."

If naturalistic pantheism is resistant to personhood, and i am using it as an example of an impersonal universe then i am using it correctly...

IIT DOES NOT MATTER If IT IS "WHOLLY RESISTANT"

"Not all" is not relevant to the argument.

i'm not interested in correcting more of you poor reading comprehension skills... stop wasting my time.



Look a these examples--these objections are the same as yours

"Santa claus doesn't exist"

"Can you prove santa doesn't exist"

"Cigarettes cause cancer"

"not all people who smoke get cancer"

"certain demographics commit more crimes than others"

"not all people of those demographics commit crimes"


Do you see why what you are saying is so dumb/ad hoc/nonsesne?
Sun Jun 17, 2018 1:36 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2629Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

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

TJump wrote:Are you an idiot?


What is wrong with you, TJump?

You realize that you aren't obliged to call people names to make a point, right?

You also realize that calling people names doesn't make your argument stronger?

In fact, it makes it appear a lot weaker as it seems your argument is insufficient in itself and needs an ad hominem to distract away from the flaws and strengthen it by attempting to belittle your interlocutor. Obviously, you're not going to convince me that I am an idiot - so you must be relying on convincing others that I am stupid. Perhaps you might be surprised to find that the readership here is a little more sophisticated than you're used to on Youtube?

I am not sure what you think you're going to achieve by being abusive, but whatever it is, you're mistaken.


TJump wrote:Read your own included line:

'But it is important to realise that not even the latter are wholly resistant to personhood."

If naturalistic pantheism is resistant to personhood, and i am using it as an example of an impersonal universe then i am using it correctly...


It says 'not' - did you read it?

As in, not wholly resistant, as in, even naturalistic pantheism is not wholly resistant to personhood, meaning personhood does, factually, still apply.

Ergo, this is a contradiction to your claim; and it's sourced in a legitimate and credible encyclopedia of philosophy whereas all you've leant on is your personal authority combined with increasing unwarranted aggression.


TJump wrote:IIT DOES NOT MATTER If IT IS "WHOLLY RESISTANT"


It says "not wholly resistant" - for it to corroborate your argument, it would need to be 'wholly resistant'.

Shall I make a comment about your intelligence now and talk down to you?


TJump wrote:"Not all" is not relevant to the argument.

i'm not interested in correcting more of you poor reading comprehension skills... stop wasting my time.


Ironic.

Incidentally, I am not wasting your time. You choose to write here, you choose to make a wrong argument, and you choose to argue the point. Stop pretending that I'm doing something bad to you.



TJump wrote:Look a these examples--these objections are the same as yours

"Santa claus doesn't exist"

"Can you prove santa doesn't exist"

"Cigarettes cause cancer"

"not all people who smoke get cancer"

"certain demographics commit more crimes than others"

"not all people of those demographics commit crimes"


You mean: look at my series of distractions and strawman arguments....

Why would I need to do that when I can just look at the actual arguments being made?



TJump wrote:Do you see why what you are saying is so dumb/ad hoc/nonsesne?


No, because what I am saying is a) sourced unlike your confident but apparently flawed assertions b) not ad hoc as I've already explained to you c) not nonsense just because it disagrees with you.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Jun 17, 2018 2:28 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2629Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

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

Let's break it down clearly so you can address it in toto

It is clear that pantheistic systems which start from the theistic God which they then find to be all-inclusive, or Absolute Idealist systems which derive all reality from a spiritual principle, will find it easier to attribute something like personhood to the cosmos than will those which are more naturalistically motivated. But it is important to realise that not even the latter are wholly resistant to personhood.


It notes 3 systems of pantheism: theistic, idealist, naturalistic

It then goes on to note that under each system, personhood can still apply.

Theistic: easy
Idealist: easy
Naturalistic, i.e. the 'latter': not so easy, but still applicable


So my source actually contradicts your many claims regarding this. It is a legitimate source.

So about the source you use to support your position.

Could you provide that source, please?
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Jun 17, 2018 2:38 pm
TJumpPosts: 113Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:20 am Gender: Time Lord

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

Im not calling you names, this is a serious question:
are you an idiot?



"Einstein was a pantheist but rejected any notion of a personal God. for many pantheists rejection of a personal deity is the definitive mark or most important element of their position. "

"it is true that traditional theism has regularly opposed pantheism on the grounds that it tends to be impersonal,"


These sentences means pantheism tends to be impersonal


It is clear that pantheistic systems which start from the theistic God which they then find to be all-inclusive, or Absolute Idealist systems which derive all reality from a spiritual principle, will find it easier to attribute something like personhood to the cosmos than will those which are more naturalistically motivated.


This sentence means Naturalistic pantheism IS MORE RESISTANT to personhood than just pantheism.

'But it is important to realise that not even the latter are wholly resistant to personhood."

This sentence means, it is possible for some pantheists to be personal, but MOST ARE NOT. I.E. NOT ALL

AGAIN stop wasting my time.... im not interested in correcting your poor reading comprehension skills.

I am using it to mean, impersonal universe....

learn how logic works.


My Argument: "cigarettes cause cancer"

Your argument: " not all people who smoke get cancer"


I repeat, serious question ARE YOU AN IDIOT?



"t is clear that pantheistic systems which start from the theistic God"

this sentence means, the minority of version of pantheism that start from god....."

IT DOES NOT MEAN all version of pantheism start from God.
Sun Jun 17, 2018 2:41 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2629Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

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

TJump wrote:Im not calling you names, this is a serious question:
are you an idiot?

...

I repeat, serious question ARE YOU AN IDIOT?


Are you a pedophile?

I'm not calling you names, but serious question: are you sexually attracted to young children?

We can all play these games, TJump, but in this forum, it's usually not considered ideal.

So about your source - you know, the one you appealed to and told other people to find on your behalf.

How about you cease the juvenile posturing and supply that source?

Or are you not at liberty to accept the burden of proof in your argument?

If not, then your argument is dismissed as wrong considering legitimate sources contradict it.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Jun 17, 2018 2:48 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2629Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

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

Before...

TJump wrote:Theism as defined by theists entails a personal God, naturalistic pantheism entails there is no personal god... hence its not theism.



After the idiot (me) did your legwork for you...


TJump wrote:This sentence means Naturalistic pantheism IS MORE RESISTANT to personhood than just pantheism.

...

This sentence means, it is possible for some pantheists to be personal, but MOST ARE NOT. I.E. NOT ALL



Your argument has changed.

Did you need a hand moving the goalposts, or can you manage alone?
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Jun 17, 2018 2:55 pm
TJumpPosts: 113Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:20 am Gender: Time Lord

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

again the problem is with your low levels of comprehension so Ill explain using a simpler example:

People do not say, "Santa probably does not exist", they say "Santa does not exist" even though they cannot prove there is no santa...

iT'S CALLED A COLLOQUIALISM, and its how most language works. your entire criticism is that i did not phrase it inductively rather than deductively which is like saying:

"Santa claus doesn't exist"

"Can you prove santa doesn't exist"

"Cigarettes cause cancer"

"not all people who smoke get cancer"

"certain demographics commit more crimes than others"

"not all people of those demographics commit crimes"



YOU NOT UNDERSTANDING HOW WORDS WORK ISN'T A PROBLEM WITH MY ARGUMENT. its a problem with your brain.


pantheism is resistant to personhood by your own reference.

naturalistic pantheism is EVER MORE RESISTANT by your on reference.

I'm using it as a non personal universe

IM USING THE TERM CORRECTLY AS IT IS INTENDED BY ITS LITERAL DEFINITION GIVEN BY THE SOURCE U LIST.... ARE YOU AN IDIOT?


naturalistic pantheism = an impersonal universe.
Sun Jun 17, 2018 3:15 pm
TJumpPosts: 113Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:20 am Gender: Time Lord

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

And like Einstein, for many pantheists rejection of a personal deity is the definitive mark or most important element of their position. (Levine 1994; Harrison 2004)


idiot.
Last edited by TJump on Sun Jun 17, 2018 3:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sun Jun 17, 2018 3:42 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2629Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

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

TJump wrote:again the problem is with your low levels of comprehension so Ill explain using a simpler example:


Actually, that's not the case at all. It's just an ad hominem you've attempted to use several times and which hasn't found any purchase.


TJump wrote:People do not say, "Santa probably does not exist", they say "Santa does not exist" even though they cannot prove there is no santa...


This is all completely irrelevant.

Are you sure that you're being simple for my benefit?


TJump wrote:iT'S CALLED A COLLOQUIALISM, and its how most language works. your entire criticism is that i did not phrase it inductively rather than deductively which is like saying:


No, that is not my criticism at all.

Rather, you made an absolutist claim before I even replied, whereas, in reality your absolutist claim is wrong.

You have since changed your absolutist claim, while still trying to foist off the idea that I'm some kind of bumbling village idiot.

If that is the case, and I am a bumbling clueless loon, then what does it make you given the fact that I've countered your contention to the point you have expressly acknowledged the very point I made in the first reply on this thread of conversation to you?


TJump wrote:"Santa claus doesn't exist"

"Can you prove santa doesn't exist"

"Cigarettes cause cancer"

"not all people who smoke get cancer"

"certain demographics commit more crimes than others"

"not all people of those demographics commit crimes"


All of these are strawman arguments, as I already pointed out.

I can render them valid if you want me to, but it won't work out so well for you.


TJump wrote:YOU NOT UNDERSTANDING HOW WORDS WORK ISN'T A PROBLEM WITH MY ARGUMENT. its a problem with your brain.


Whereas, I understand very well how words work, thanks all the same, and your assertion that there is something wrong with me is factually a problem with your argumentation.



TJump wrote:pantheism is resistant to personhood by your own reference.


Resistant to means your original statement - the one I am contending - is wrong.


TJump wrote:naturalistic pantheism is EVER MORE RESISTANT by your on reference.


No, that's another flawed rendition.

It's not 'pantheism is resistant to' and then 'naturalistic pantheism is more resistant to' - it was just that naturalististic pantheism is resistant to the personal.

However, when contrasted with your many confident assertions to the contrary, it's clear that not only do I have a valid point, but you are working overtime trying to obfuscate away from acknowledging that point for whatever silly reason to the point of acting like a numpty on the internet to a stranger.



TJump wrote:I'm using it as a non personal universe


And you can't offer any source corroborating your idiosyncratic usage, ergo no one is obliged to accept your willful ad hoc semantic games.


TJump wrote:IM USING THE TERM CORRECTLY AS IT IS INTENDED BY ITS LITERAL DEFINITION GIVEN BY THE SOURCE U LIST.... ARE YOU AN IDIOT?


No, you are not, as I've just shown.

Are you a pedophile?

Pedophiles love to use caps lock, so I hear.


TJump wrote:naturalistic pantheism = an impersonal universe.


Any time you want to cite a source for this claim, you might find some buyers. Until then, your idiosyncrasies don't dictate reality, no matter how confident you are, no matter how aggressive you become.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Jun 17, 2018 3:43 pm
TJumpPosts: 113Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:20 am Gender: Time Lord

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

And like Einstein, for many pantheists rejection of a personal deity is the definitive mark or most important element of their position. (Levine 1994; Harrison 2004)

idiot, im done with you. Pull you head out of you ass = problem solved.
Sun Jun 17, 2018 3:44 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2629Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

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

TJump wrote:"Einstein, for many pantheists rejection of a personal deity is the definitive mark or most important element of their position. (Levine 1994; Harrison 2004)"

idiot.



Beautifully ironic, thank you.

Oh and you've reposted it twice just in case anyone missed the irony.

Did you want to perhaps type it out in caps - that's always more persuasive.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Jun 17, 2018 3:45 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2629Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

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

TJump wrote: ... naturalistic pantheism entails there is no personal god



TJump wrote:This sentence means Naturalistic pantheism IS MORE RESISTANT to personhood than just pantheism.

...

This sentence means, it is possible for some pantheists to be personal...
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Jun 17, 2018 3:46 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2629Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

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

Best Atheist arguments you probably haven't heard before


And worst ones you have, but usually not from atheists.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Jun 17, 2018 3:51 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 3210Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

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

Greetings,

I'm with Sparhafoc on this.

It is clear that pantheistic systems which start from the theistic God which they then find to be all-inclusive, or Absolute Idealist systems which derive all reality from a spiritual principle, will find it easier to attribute something like personhood to the cosmos than will those which are more naturalistically motivated. But it is important to realise that not even the latter are wholly resistant to personhood.

To give an analogy, consider conductors and resistors in regard to electricity.

Conductors conduct electricity - resistors resist electricity. However, please note that it's not the case that the latter does not conduct electricity.

Put another way, a conductor has low resistance, while an insulator has much higher resistance.

In other words, all forms of pantheism have some level of personhood, even naturalistically-motivated forms.

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
Sun Jun 17, 2018 4:00 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 3210Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

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

Greetings,

Sparhafoc wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:I'd disagree with Baltzly.

Although the Stoics acknowledged the existence of Nature spirits (gods within Nature), they held that these gods had no control over human destiny - that that was solely in the hands of ourselves.

Since Christianity absorbed Stoic philosophy, it's possible that he's referring to early (Stoic)-Christians.

I recall you forwarding this position before.

Out of interest, have you read Baltzly's Stoic Pantheism essay?

I've got it saved to read later today.

My main reason for holding this view is, apart from the Stoic philosophers themselves, the various commentaries on their writings.

As for Baltzly's paper, I've just downloaded it for later.

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
Sun Jun 17, 2018 4:03 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2629Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

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

TJump - if your argumentation were competent, why do you need to engage in the below?

Note: this kind of behavior is very hard to understand. You've refused to cite sources, thereby also refusing to accept the burden of proof. You have repeatedly demanded that people take your certainty as indication of the validity of your contentions. You have tried pointlessly to pretend that the reason for my rebuttals is because I am an idiot and have the reading comprehension of a child/idiot. And you've also taken on a tone as if you own this place and that I am subject to your whim.

Stop acting up now, eh chap? James acknowledges my point, ergo we're either both idiots, or the entire ad hominem is a pointless distraction you've concocted through being defensive. Admitting your error would have been much quicker, and wouldn't have undermined your credibility so greatly as this.



TJump wrote:This is very simple, you are clearly just to deluded to understand so i will explain it to you as if you are a child...


TJump wrote:get on topic or leave please.


TJump wrote:Are you an idiot?


i'm not interested in correcting more of you poor reading comprehension skills... stop wasting my time.


TJump wrote:Im not calling you names, this is a serious question:
are you an idiot?


TJump wrote:AGAIN stop wasting my time.... im not interested in correcting your poor reading comprehension skills.


TJump wrote:I repeat, serious question ARE YOU AN IDIOT?


TJump wrote:again the problem is with your low levels of comprehension so Ill explain using a simpler example:


TJump wrote:YOU NOT UNDERSTANDING HOW WORDS WORK ISN'T A PROBLEM WITH MY ARGUMENT. its a problem with your brain.


TJump wrote:IM USING THE TERM CORRECTLY AS IT IS INTENDED BY ITS LITERAL DEFINITION GIVEN BY THE SOURCE U LIST.... ARE YOU AN IDIOT?


idiot, im done with you. Pull you head out of you ass = problem solved.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Jun 17, 2018 4:12 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  Page 6 of 26
 [ 506 posts ] 
Return to Religion & Irreligion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests