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 7 of 26
 [ 506 posts ] 
Best Atheist arguments you probably haven't heard before
Author Message
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 3179Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

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

Greetings,

TJump wrote:
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.

Then let me re-phrase it for you:

Physicists know of nothing that exists outside of both space and time.

There are potentially things that might exist outside of space, and there are potentially things that might exist outside of time - but not both.

TJump wrote:
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.

That's two words.

TJump wrote:Which is a far more efficient way then trying to explain quantum physics to them dont u think?

You don't have to explain quantum physics - or even physics - to them to get them to understand this.

It's enough to say that the Big Bang was the beginning of our universe, not Nature itself.

How complicated is that?

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 4:12 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2458Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

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

Dragan Glas wrote: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.


And a step further: resistors are explicitly still meant to conduct electricity; so any claim that a resistor does not entail conducting electricity is wrong.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Jun 17, 2018 4:16 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 3179Joined: 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: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.

And a step further: resistors are explicitly still meant to conduct electricity; so any claim that a resistor does not entail conducting electricity is wrong.

That's the point I was making, ... idiot. :P

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 4:18 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2458Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

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

Dragan Glas wrote:That's the point I was making, ... idiot. :P


HEY!

I'll have you know I resemble that remark!
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Jun 17, 2018 4:22 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,

I'm with Sparhafoc on this.




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

I am using the definition these people are using, that non personhood is the definitive mark or most important element of pantheism....

other people's definitions are irrelevant starwman of my position.

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

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.
Sun Jun 17, 2018 6:46 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:Physicists know of nothing that exists outside of both space and time.




True.

Dragan Glas wrote:There are potentially things that might exist outside of space, and there are potentially things that might exist outside of time - but not both.




False. already addressed. Space and time may not be the only modes of existence... your argument has been debunked.



Dragan Glas wrote:
That's two words.


Naturalisticpantheism, problem solved.


Dragan Glas wrote:
It's enough to say that the Big Bang was the beginning of our universe, not Nature itself.

How complicated is that?


because they are going to say the same thing you did above, things cant exist outside of space and time, and the big bang is the origin of space and time.
Sun Jun 17, 2018 6:58 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2458Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

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

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


That's not charitable.

It's actually Hanlon's Razor, and it says never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.

Of course, it would necessitate you having justified either notion.

The more elegant solution to the conundrum here is that you don't really grasp the argument. This may be seen by the sentence you've chosen to quote when it doesn't really do any work for your argument, or against mine.

Could both James and I be wrong? Yes, it's possible.

Could it just be you who's wrong? Yes, it's possible and ever so slightly more so considering there's no actual expertise involved here, just reading comprehension, thus intersubjectivity may well count for something.


Any which way, more words from you that appear to be about beating your chest when you could just be citing your source to validate your assertions.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Jun 17, 2018 6:59 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2458Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

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

other people's definitions are irrelevant starwman of my position.


Do you not appreciate that this doesn't stand to reason?

They can't be dismissed as 'irrelevant' just because you elect to elide them from your preferred definition.

Similarly, they can't be a strawman of your position considering those positions were not fabricated in response to your position to intentionally misrepresent it to more easily defeat it. They existed prior to your argument.

Rather, as has been shown, your contention that naturalistic pantheism entails atheism is not supported. This isn't about who says what, it's the fact that it doesn't necessarily entail atheism.

Quite the contrary, pantheism's inclusion there - as opposed to just naturalism - suggests there's an entity lurking in the definition.

How hard is it really just to acknowledge your error and move on? /shrug

Is it the 'idiot' thing? Now you've called me an idiot, you can't back down or feel you'd lose face?
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Jun 17, 2018 7:05 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 3179Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

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

Greetings,

TJump wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:Physicists know of nothing that exists outside of both space and time.

True.

Dragan Glas wrote:There are potentially things that might exist outside of space, and there are potentially things that might exist outside of time - but not both.

False. already addressed. Space and time may not be the only modes of existence... your argument has been debunked.

My argument has not been debunked.

What other modes of existence do you claim exist? What evidence for such do you have?

How is your claim any different than that of theists, who claim that a Creator exists "outside of space and time"?

TJump wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:That's two words.

Naturalisticpantheism, problem solved.

That's a rather childish response.

Why not simply admit that you made an error?

TJump wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:It's enough to say that the Big Bang was the beginning of our universe, not Nature itself.

How complicated is that?

because they are going to say the same thing you did above, things cant exist outside of space and time, and the big bang is the origin of space and time.

It isn't - that's the point of explaining their misunderstanding. This has been done a number of times on this forum.

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 8:17 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 3179Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

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

Greetings,

TJump wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:Greetings,

I'm with Sparhafoc on this.

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

I am using the definition these people are using, that non personhood is the definitive mark or most important element of pantheism....

other people's definitions are irrelevant starwman of my position.

There are a few problems with this.

Firstly the quote reads:

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)

However, this does not preclude a deity in pantheism, as the following quote indicates:
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 still involves belief in some form of deity, if only impersonal, which is to what I had originally objected in favour of the term "Naturalism", since it removes any concept of a deity, personal or otherwise.

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

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.

Sparhafoc has addressed this already, and - again - I agree with his take on it.

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 8:27 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:
What other modes of existence do you claim exist? What evidence for such do you have?

How is your claim any different than that of theists, who claim that a Creator exists "outside of space and time"?


I have no evidence, my only claim is that we don't know everything therefore we cannot say there is no such alternative. Your claim that there it is no possible for thigns ot exist outside of space or rimte, has a burden of proof you can't meet.

Dragan Glas wrote:That's a rather childish response.


It was childish to spend the time to make a comment about it, next time use the principle of charity and ignore it.
Why not simply admit that you made an error?

Dragan Glas wrote:
because they are going to say the same thing you did above, things cant exist outside of space and time, and the big bang is the origin of space and time.

It isn't - that's the point of explaining their misunderstanding. This has been done a number of times on this forum.
[/quote]

its a waste of time getting side tracked talking about a different argument, so just using the term naturalistic pantheism keep you on the topic of the original argument without having to spend more time talking about physics.
Sun Jun 17, 2018 8:29 pm
TJumpPosts: 113Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:20 am Gender: Time Lord

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

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

I am using the definition these people are using, that non personhood is the definitive mark or most important element of pantheism....

other people's definitions are irrelevant starwman of my position.


all words can have multiple definitions.... i dont care what definitions other people use. End of discussion stop wasting my time with a strawman.


Dragan Glas wrote:
Sparhafoc has addressed this already, and - again - I agree with his take on it.



I blocked any post by him from appearing, i will not see anything he posts. If you agree with what he said you have made a mistake.
Sun Jun 17, 2018 8:37 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2458Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

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

TJump wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:
What other modes of existence do you claim exist? What evidence for such do you have?

How is your claim any different than that of theists, who claim that a Creator exists "outside of space and time"?


I have no evidence, my only claim is that we don't know everything therefore we cannot say there is no such alternative.


Not much of an atheist argument, is it?

We have no evidence of gods either, therefore we cannot say there are no gods? Whence cometh the original claim? If it's not evident, then why is it being proposed?


TJump wrote:Your claim that there it is no possible for thigns ot exist outside of space or rimte, has a burden of proof you can't meet.


Do you find arguments from ignorance persuasive?

It's far safer to claim that something for which we don't have evidence doesn't exist than to claim that it does in the absence of evidence. This is because, epistemologically, one should remain skeptical as to where the claimant got their initial claim.


TJump wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:That's a rather childish response.


It was childish to spend the time to make a comment about it, next time use the principle of charity and ignore it.
Why not simply admit that you made an error?


*chokes on his morning coffee*

Setting aside the blinding hubris.

According to your rendition of the principle of charity, Dragan Glas should have concluded you're either mendacious or moronic.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Mon Jun 18, 2018 4:24 am
SparhafocPosts: 2458Joined: 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)"

I am using the definition these people are using, that non personhood is the definitive mark or most important element of pantheism....

other people's definitions are irrelevant starwman of my position.


You appear to think copying and pasting your previous post, even though it's been dissected and shown flawed, suffices to continue the discussion which you have also sneered at and used as a stalking horse to be abusive to people.

You were wrong the last time I replied to this copy & paste, and nothing has changed since....


viewtopic.php?p=187153#p187153

Sparhafoc wrote:Do you not appreciate that this doesn't stand to reason?

They can't be dismissed as 'irrelevant' just because you elect to elide them from your preferred definition.

Similarly, they can't be a strawman of your position considering those positions were not fabricated in response to your position to intentionally misrepresent it to more easily defeat it. They existed prior to your argument.

Rather, as has been shown, your contention that naturalistic pantheism entails atheism is not supported. This isn't about who says what, it's the fact that it doesn't necessarily entail atheism.

Quite the contrary, pantheism's inclusion there - as opposed to just naturalism - suggests there's an entity lurking in the definition.

How hard is it really just to acknowledge your error and move on? /shrug

Is it the 'idiot' thing? Now you've called me an idiot, you can't back down or feel you'd lose face?




TJump wrote:all words can have multiple definitions.... i dont care what definitions other people use.


Lewis Carrol wrote: "I don't know what you mean by 'glory'," Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't - till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"

"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."




TJump wrote:End of discussion stop wasting my time with a strawman.


Get over yourself, pal. You just arrived and you've mistakenly come to believe you're the boss here.

Grow some hairies and acknowledge your error, THEN we might choose to move on.



TJump wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:
Sparhafoc has addressed this already, and - again - I agree with his take on it.



I blocked any post by him from appearing, i will not see anything he posts.


Ahhh, so it's clear this is all about ego.

The guy cannot engage rational discussion and needs to abuse those who don't conform to his demands, then censors them. The last refuge if one needs to pretend they're right even when shown wrong.

And his YT channel is supposed to be about reason! :roll:

Whatever the case, it's clear he didn't bother looking up the mission statement of this forum.



TJump wrote: If you agree with what he said you have made a mistake.


Thus pronounces the new Emperor of All by fiat.

With friends like these, who needs Creationists?
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Mon Jun 18, 2018 4:33 am
SparhafocPosts: 2458Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

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

Dragan Glas wrote:Sparhafoc has addressed this already, and - again - I agree with his take on it.


Careful James! If you defeat his arguments, you might find yourself blocked too... then TJump's foe list will include a substantial percentage of the active membership of this forum! :D
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Mon Jun 18, 2018 4:39 am
SparhafocPosts: 2458Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

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

http://blog.theleagueofreason.co.uk/about/

The League of Reason is not a think-tank, advocacy group or corporation. What is consensus among its members is always subject to change, and there is no established policy. The only collective belief of its team is that if constructive debate is allowed to progress, better ideas will ultimately supplant worse ideas.


Or will be abused and censored! ;)


Initially, the site was set up as a discussion forum to combat a plague of censorship against proponents of science and scepticism


What's sad is when those supposedly on the side of skepticism engage in that censorship to protect their bad ideas from skepticism.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Mon Jun 18, 2018 4:53 am
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 3179Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

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

Greetings,

TJump wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:What other modes of existence do you claim exist? What evidence for such do you have?

How is your claim any different than that of theists, who claim that a Creator exists "outside of space and time"?

I have no evidence, my only claim is that we don't know everything therefore we cannot say there is no such alternative. Your claim that there it is no possible for thigns ot exist outside of space or rimte, has a burden of proof you can't meet.

That's not what I said - I said:

Then let me re-phrase it for you:

Physicists know of nothing that exists outside of both space and time.

There are potentially things that might exist outside of space, and there are potentially things that might exist outside of time - but not both.

Both, not either one on their own.

Although one might be correct to remain agnostic as to whether something exists outside of space and time, there is the problem of exactly what could exist outside of both space and time. Theists will, of course, claim a deity does - science knows of nothing (read life-form/entity) that can exist outside of both space and time.

TJump wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:That's a rather childish response.

It was childish to spend the time to make a comment about it, next time use the principle of charity and ignore it.
Why not simply admit that you made an error?

You first.

TJump wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:It isn't - that's the point of explaining their misunderstanding. This has been done a number of times on this forum.

its a waste of time getting side tracked talking about a different argument, so just using the term naturalistic pantheism keep you on the topic of the original argument without having to spend more time talking about physics.

No physics involved, as I already pointed out.

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
Mon Jun 18, 2018 3:22 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 3179Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

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

Greetings,

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)"

I am using the definition these people are using, that non personhood is the definitive mark or most important element of pantheism....

other people's definitions are irrelevant starwman of my position.

all words can have multiple definitions.... i dont care what definitions other people use. End of discussion stop wasting my time with a strawman.

As I've said already, the denial of a personal deity still leaves the fact that it still involves a deity, if only impersonal. Pantheists - including those of a naturalistic persuasion - are still theists. Which, if you're an atheist arguing against theists, leaves their position on the existence/necessity of a deity unchallenged.

This article may clarify a number of misconceptions.

TJump wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:Sparhafoc has addressed this already, and - again - I agree with his take on it.

I blocked any post by him from appearing, i will not see anything he posts. If you agree with what he said you have made a mistake.

He correctly identified your variant of the saying as Hanlon's Razor, and his explanation of such was also correct.

I was agreeing with this. For you to claim that I have made a mistake in doing so is actually a mistake on your part.

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
Mon Jun 18, 2018 3:43 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2458Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

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

Dragan Glas wrote:This article may clarify a number of misconceptions.


4th source cited, none of them by TJump.

Apparently, Go Google It isn't really meant to be taken literally, and should be read as 'because I said so'.

In before your source supports what I've been saying all along! ;)


Dragan Glas wrote:
TJump wrote:
I blocked any post by him from appearing, i will not see anything he posts. If you agree with what he said you have made a mistake.


He correctly identified your variant of the saying as Hanlon's Razor, and his explanation of such was also correct.

I was agreeing with this. For you to claim that I have made a mistake in doing so is actually a mistake on your part.



I'm still enjoying the notion that the principle of charity results in repeatedly calling someone an idiot. Talk about erroneous reading.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Mon Jun 18, 2018 4:03 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:As I've said already, the denial of a personal deity still leaves the fact that it still involves a deity, if only impersonal. Pantheists - including those of a naturalistic persuasion - are still theists. Which, if you're an atheist arguing against theists, leaves their position on the existence/necessity of a deity unchallenged.


Again the very first paragraph of your own reference proves im correct. Pantheism deny that the 'god' has any quality of personhood or a mind which is distinct from the theist worldview making my use of it to contrast theism 100% correct. If you still want to call this a mindless deity, it makes no difference to my argument.

"Where pantheism is considered as an alternative to theism it involves a denial of at least one, and usually both, central theistic claims. Theism is the belief in a "personal" God which in some sense is separate from (transcends) the world. Pantheists usually deny the existence of a personal God. They deny the existence of a "minded" Being that possesses the characteristic properties of a "person," such as having intentional states, and the associated capacities like the ability to make decisions. "


Again debating definitions is a waste of time, i told you the definition im using. end of discussion.

Dragan Glas wrote:
He correctly identified your variant of the saying as Hanlon's Razor, and his explanation of such was also correct.

I was agreeing with this. For you to claim that I have made a mistake in doing so is actually a mistake on your part.



I dont see the relevance to any point I made.
Last edited by TJump on Mon Jun 18, 2018 5:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mon Jun 18, 2018 4:47 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  Page 7 of 26
 [ 506 posts ] 
Return to Religion & Irreligion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests