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 8 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:
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.


Yes that is correct.

I think you might be confusing epistemology with ontology. Epistemology is the study of knowledge, ontology is the study of what is.

the fact science knows of nothing that can exist outside of spacetime, does not mean there is nothing outside of spacetime.

The epistemological claim "we know of nothing that can exist outside of spacetime" is justified.
The ontological claim "nothing can exist outside of spacetime" is unjustified.


TJump wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:No physics involved, as I already pointed out.



"It's enough to say that the Big Bang was the beginning of our universe, not Nature itself." <--- physics that will need explaining.

My method is simpler Q.E.D.
Mon Jun 18, 2018 4:56 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2627Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

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

TJump wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:
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.


I think you might be confusing epistemology with ontology. Epistemology is the study of knowledge, ontology is the study of what is.

the fact science knows of nothing that can exist outside of spacetime, does not mean there is nothing outside of spacetime.

The epistemological claim "we know of nothing that can exist outside of spacetime" is justified.
The ontological claim "nothing can exist outside of spacetime" is unjustified.



Just to note James; you didn't seem to be confused about the distinction between epistemology and ontology to me. ;)
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Mon Jun 18, 2018 5:12 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2627Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

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

TJump wrote:
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.


Ahh proof. What a wonderful misuse of the word.

Regardless, the problem isn't 'the very first sentence' but rather the rest of the paragraph and other paragraphs which show the broader context which categorically shows TJump's contention wrong.



TJump wrote: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.


Whereas, the source shown actually says exactly the opposite, and that pantheists of all stripes can and do assign the quality of personhood to the universe.

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

At its most general, pantheism may be understood positively as the view that God is identical with the cosmos, the view that there exists nothing which is outside of God, or else negatively as the rejection of any view that considers God as distinct from the universe.


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

12 Personal

...

It is important to distinguish between the specific question of whether God is literally a ‘person’ and the more general question whether God is ‘person-like’; the issue of whether notions such as intellect, thought, consciousness, intent, etc. have any application to the divine, even if analogical or metaphorical. It should also be recognised both that the notion of personhood is itself deeply problematic, and that a not inconsiderable number of traditional theists would only with considerable qualification be prepared to allow that God is personal.

These points made, while it is true that traditional theism has regularly opposed pantheism on the grounds that it tends to be impersonal, and true also that many pantheists would deny that God is personal, it is nonetheless the case that many other pantheists have thought mind-like attribution of some form or other to the cosmos absolutely central to their position.

...

Another notable pantheist to insist that the supreme being is personal was Gustav Fechner, who develops a form of panpsychism according to which all organised matter must be thought of as possessing its own inner life or soul. The more complex and developed its structure, the more sophisticated its spiritual life; from the lowest soul-life of plants, through our own mental life, which is just the inner side of our bodies, through the soul-life of the planets and stars up to the most developed spirit of all, God, the consciousness which corresponds to the most complex organism there is, the cosmos itself. More recently, a very similar view has been put forward by Timothy Sprigge who maintains that that the only conceivable form of reality consists in streams of experience, such as we know ourselves to be, all of which must be thought of as included together within a single all-embracing experience; which we may call God or the Absolute.

...

While to extend such a model beyond the merely receptive to the active aspects of personhood, we might think of the way in which the agency of an organisation is exercised through the agency of its individual members. Here several pantheists have been influenced by Christian ideas of the indwelling spirit of God at work within the body of the Church.



Isn't it amazing what you can do to the meaning of a bunch of words when you simply elide 95% of them?


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


This just brings to mind Cartman off of South Park.

In reality, debating definitions is absolutely essential in the acceptance of any argument. If the definition proposed is unacceptable, then any argument based on it is similarly unacceptable.

This is what LEROY always tried to do: my argument, so you have to accept my definition. No such obligation exists.


TJump wrote:
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.


Well James, you can explain to him that his rendition of the principle of charity was nonsensical as it resulted in him repeatedly calling me an idiot. That's not the principle of charity, it's Hanlon's Razor.

Of course, TJump may well just reply, ahh yes, but that's the definition I declare, so it is thus, end of discussion.

I would then suggest citing the Humpty Dumpty lines for him to consider.

Lewis Carroll 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."
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Mon Jun 18, 2018 5:22 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2627Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

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

I submit that the only categorical distinction between theism and pantheism is that the former's god is distinct from the universe (having made it) and exists independently of the universe, whereas the latter holds that the god and the universe are synonymous and there is no division between the creator and the created.

Personhood is actually irrelevant, and probably a misconception arising with familiarity only of the Western theistic traditions. A god that is the universe could still, as the sum of all the experiences within the universe, be able and willing to intervene in its own development.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Mon Jun 18, 2018 5:43 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,

TJump wrote:
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.

It would be better if you used yellow instead of red/pink to highlight text - it's easier on the eye.

And debating definitions is central to any discussion - "It's just semantics" is a common error of cosmic proportions. [See what I did there?]

Further, your quote gives a false impression of the issue. For example, if you unblocked Sparhafoc, you'd see that he's drawn attention to the following text:

At its most general, pantheism may be understood positively as the view that God is identical with the cosmos, the view that there exists nothing which is outside of God, or else negatively as the rejection of any view that considers God as distinct from the universe.


Not to mention this:

12 Personal

...

It is important to distinguish between the specific question of whether God is literally a ‘person’ and the more general question whether God is ‘person-like’; the issue of whether notions such as intellect, thought, consciousness, intent, etc. have any application to the divine, even if analogical or metaphorical. It should also be recognised both that the notion of personhood is itself deeply problematic, and that a not inconsiderable number of traditional theists would only with considerable qualification be prepared to allow that God is personal.

These points made, while it is true that traditional theism has regularly opposed pantheism on the grounds that it tends to be impersonal, and true also that many pantheists would deny that God is personal, it is nonetheless the case that many other pantheists have thought mind-like attribution of some form or other to the cosmos absolutely central to their position.

...

Another notable pantheist to insist that the supreme being is personal was Gustav Fechner, who develops a form of panpsychism according to which all organised matter must be thought of as possessing its own inner life or soul. The more complex and developed its structure, the more sophisticated its spiritual life; from the lowest soul-life of plants, through our own mental life, which is just the inner side of our bodies, through the soul-life of the planets and stars up to the most developed spirit of all, God, the consciousness which corresponds to the most complex organism there is, the cosmos itself. More recently, a very similar view has been put forward by Timothy Sprigge who maintains that that the only conceivable form of reality consists in streams of experience, such as we know ourselves to be, all of which must be thought of as included together within a single all-embracing experience; which we may call God or the Absolute.

...

While to extend such a model beyond the merely receptive to the active aspects of personhood, we might think of the way in which the agency of an organisation is exercised through the agency of its individual members. Here several pantheists have been influenced by Christian ideas of the indwelling spirit of God at work within the body of the Church.

So, you see, things are not as clear-cut as you portray them to be.

TJump wrote:
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.

The fact that your version resulted in you're implying he was an idiot could hardly be called charitable by your definition, could it?

And your claiming that I was making a mistake in agreeing with his correction of your misinterpreted variant, is still - with all due respect - 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 6:41 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,

TJump wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote: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.

Yes that is correct.

I think you might be confusing epistemology with ontology. Epistemology is the study of knowledge, ontology is the study of what is.

I'm quite familiar with the difference between epistemology (the nature of knowledge, and what we can and cannot know) and ontology (the nature of being).

With regard to the former, Gleiser's, rather poetically titled, The Island Of Knowledge, and Du Sautoy's, What We Cannot Know, may be of interest.

TJump wrote:the fact science knows of nothing that can exist outside of spacetime, does not mean there is nothing outside of spacetime.

The epistemological claim "we know of nothing that can exist outside of spacetime" is justified.
The ontological claim "nothing can exist outside of spacetime" is unjustified.

Yet leaves the door open for theists: if one says it's unknown if it's possible for something to exist outside of (all) space-time or not, the theists will jump in with "Yes it's possible: God!".

Naturalism removes this possibility.

TJump wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:No physics involved, as I already pointed out.

"It's enough to say that the Big Bang was the beginning of our universe, not Nature itself." <--- physics that will need explaining.

My method is simpler Q.E.D.

As I've said, we've done it here with other theists - only the disingenuous deny this point.

Most theists will then move God outside Nature, not just our space-time continuum.

Having given ground, we then progress from there.

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
Last edited by Dragan Glas on Mon Jun 18, 2018 8:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mon Jun 18, 2018 6:55 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:
TJump wrote:I think you might be confusing epistemology with ontology. Epistemology is the study of knowledge, ontology is the study of what is.

the fact science knows of nothing that can exist outside of spacetime, does not mean there is nothing outside of spacetime.

The epistemological claim "we know of nothing that can exist outside of spacetime" is justified.
The ontological claim "nothing can exist outside of spacetime" is unjustified.

Just to note James; you didn't seem to be confused about the distinction between epistemology and ontology to me. ;)

Thank you for the vote of confidence. :)

I trust you might find the linked books of interest - I certainly did.

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 6:57 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:It would be better if you used yellow instead of red/pink to highlight text - it's easier on the eye.


Ok, i wasn't sure which color was best so i was just trying different ones.

Dragan Glas wrote:And debating definitions is central to any discussion - "It's just semantics" is a common error of cosmic proportions. [See what I did there?]


No. Debating definitions is important to make sure you understand what the other person is saying so you do not strawman their position (or them yours) by using different definition for the same word.

Once someone has said "This is the definition i am using" the debate is over, you now know what they are saying regardless of whether or not you agree with their definition.

debating definitions of words because you think they are using it incorrectly, is a waste of time because it does not change their argument... you are free to imagine they used the word you think is correct and get back to the actual topic.

Dragan Glas wrote:Further, your quote gives a false impression of the issue.



all quotes and references provided PROVE i am correct. Any disagreement is caused by your misinterpretation of the words.

you are misinteriting when it says "pantheism equate the universe to god"

Equating the universe to god = the universe is non contingent/etenral.
Equating the universe to god DOES NOT MEAN the universe is a personal being.
[the same applies to the term deity]

As indicated by the quote i provided which EXPLICITLY States Most pantheists DO NOT believe in a personal universe.

" 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.""

Dragan Glas wrote:The fact that your version resulted in you're implying he was an idiot could hardly be called charitable by your definition, could it?


Being charitable only applies to arguments so you do not misinterpret the point being made. Insults are ad homs, they are irrelevant to any point made on either side. The reason i will not engage with him is because if after it has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt my definition is correct he is unable to understand then nothing can be gained from further communication with someone that intellectually limited.

If i say 1+1=2,
He says no its not,
Then i prove it does
Then he denies again...

Then he is too stupid to understand and i shrug and move on.

If you agree with him, you're wrong.
Mon Jun 18, 2018 7:44 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:
Yet leaves the door open for theists: if one says it's unknown if it's possible for something to exist outside of (all) space-time or not, the theists will jump in with "Yes it's possible: God!".

Naturalism removes this possibility.


No. Metaphysical naturalism (The position there is absolutely no supernatural world), is equally unjustified as theism.
Methodological naturalism (the position we have no verifiable reason to believe in the supernatural), is justified.

If you make the claim "There is no God", you hold the burden of proof. (which you can't prove)
If you make the claim "There is no reason to believe in God", they hold the burden of proof.

Dragan Glas wrote:As I've said, we've done it here with other theists - only the disingenuous deny this point.


then you have conceded the point.... you need to explain things to theists, i dont. I can just say "Naturalistic pantheism".
Mon Jun 18, 2018 7:51 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2627Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

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

TJump wrote:No. Debating definitions is important to make sure you understand what the other person is saying so you do not strawman their position (or them yours) by using different definition for the same word.

Once someone has said "This is the definition i am using" the debate is over, you now know what they are saying regardless of whether or not you agree with their definition.


Is he channeling LEROY?

:lol:

Well, it's not the definition we're using, ergo the debate is over.

No? Funny how it only ever works in their favour.


TJump wrote:debating definitions of words because you think they are using it incorrectly, is a waste of time because it does not change their argument... you are free to imagine they used the word you think is correct and get back to the actual topic.


And when that different interpretation of terms makes the argument invalid?

To me, it could only ever result in talking past each other.


TJump wrote:all quotes and references provided PROVE i am correct.


Misunderstanding of the notion of proof, plus this is about as bare-faced a lie as is possible to imagine. Quite the contrary, TJump has repeatedly elided all the inconvenient bits of those sources, and refuses to actually provide a source substantiating his claim.


TJump wrote: Any disagreement is caused by your misinterpretation of the words.


Or, in fact, his misinterpretation of the words, therefore the disagreement.


TJump wrote:you are misinteriting when it says "pantheism equate the universe to god"


No, this is false.


TJump wrote:Equating the universe to god = the universe is non contingent/etenral.
Equating the universe to god DOES NOT MEAN the universe is a personal being.
[the same applies to the term deity]


Bait and switch.

The first has been shown flawed. The second is irrelevant because it's not what anyone has contended. The third is a new misdirection.


TJump wrote:As indicated by the quote i provided which EXPLICITLY States Most pantheists DO NOT believe in a personal universe.


TJump didn't provide a quote. He elided a single sentence from an essay on pantheism I supplied which contradicts his claims. The rest of the paragraph, and many other paragraphs explicitly contradict his repeated assertions.

What's most amusing is how he keeps claiming it's pointless to discuss definitions, but still wants to assert that his definition is the correct one. Have cake, eat it.


TJump wrote:" 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.""


Quote-mining. The article goes on to show the various ways in which pantheists don't deny the existence of a personal god.


TJump wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:The fact that your version resulted in you're implying he was an idiot could hardly be called charitable by your definition, could it?


Being charitable only applies to arguments so you do not misinterpret the point being made. Insults are ad homs, they are irrelevant to any point made on either side.


Clearly not true. He was attempting to evade the substance of my discussion by declaring me an idiot rather than showing my argument wrong. Why was I wrong? Because I am an idiot. Why couldn't I understand the correct answer (TJump's) because my reading comprehension is that of a child... and so on.

It's a textbook ad hominem.

The laughable quality here though is that after engaging in all this ad hominem he then censors my responses. Last refuge of the coward. He couldn't win the argument, couldn't back down, so he pressed a button and made it go away.


TJump wrote:The reason i will not engage with him is because if after it has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt my definition is correct he is unable to understand then nothing can be gained from further communication with someone that intellectually limited.


In reality, TJump kept invoking the 'Go Google It' response to authenticating his own claims, I actually went to google it for him, he then tried to declare that the legitimate sources I provided supported him even when they manifestly didn't, he then tried to impugn my intelligence in the hope of pretending it meant my argument was invalid, and then having failed to get any of this to stick, he used censorship to avoid having to acknowledge his error.


TJump wrote:If i say 1+1=2,
He says no its not,
Then i prove it does
Then he denies again...

Then he is too stupid to understand and i shrug and move on.


Whereas, what actually happened is:

TJump said 1+1=3 and told others to google it.
I googled it and showed 1+1 is not 3
He then called me an idiot and blocked me.

There was no 'shrugging and moving on' - there was a concerted effort to paint me as a moron, then the coward's usage of censorship.

Amusing that he's trying to paint himself as reasoned, calm and rational though.


TJump wrote:If you agree with him, you're wrong.


The Gospel according to TJump.

Given he is declaring you wrong too, then according to his stated M.O. shouldn't he have blocked you too? You've actually written more posts refuting his argument than I did!

I wonder if he really thinks this is going to work.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Mon Jun 18, 2018 8:02 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2627Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

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

TJump wrote:No. Metaphysical naturalism (The position there is absolutely no supernatural world), is equally unjustified as theism.


Oh really?

Well, the only way it would be unjustified would be if there was evidence of the supernatural.

If there cannot be evidence of the supernatural, then why is there any claim of it in the first place?


TJump wrote:Methodological naturalism (the position we have no verifiable reason to believe in the supernatural), is justified.


This can't be true. Methodological naturalism isn't contingent on philosophical naturalism being true, but if it were unjustified then methodological naturalism couldn't be either: we'd know that the methodology is leaving something out, and all its answers would be wrong or just lucky.


TJump wrote:If you make the claim "There is no God", you hold the burden of proof. (which you can't prove)
If you make the claim "There is no reason to believe in God", they hold the burden of proof.


Capital G. There is no God. Happy to accept that burden of proof.

But gods, on the other hand, are a very different kettle of fish.

You also can't claim there is no teapot orbiting Mars, or no immaterial, invisible dragon in my garage - burden of proof, right?

TJump doesn't actually grasp the arguments he's making. He's just repeating them.



TJump wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:As I've said, we've done it here with other theists - only the disingenuous deny this point.


then you have conceded the point.... you need to explain things to theists, i dont. I can just say "Naturalistic pantheism".


And they can just say 'no'.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Mon Jun 18, 2018 8:09 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2627Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

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

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quote_mining#Format

1: Read a large chunk of text, and notice something that agrees with your argument:

.... Sentence that disagrees with my position. Sentence that disagrees with my position. Sentence that disagrees with my position. Sentence that agrees with my position. Sentence that disagrees with my position. Sentence that disagrees with my position. Sentence that disagrees with my position. ....


2: Remove all unnecessary or disagreeing text:

Sentence that agrees with my position.


And you're done!
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Mon Jun 18, 2018 8:13 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,

TJump wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:It would be better if you used yellow instead of red/pink to highlight text - it's easier on the eye.

Ok, i wasn't sure which color was best so i was just trying different ones.

Technically speaking, in terms of contrasting colours, orange is the contrast of blue. But yellow is fine.


TJump wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:And debating definitions is central to any discussion - "It's just semantics" is a common error of cosmic proportions. [See what I did there?]

No. Debating definitions is important to make sure you understand what the other person is saying so you do not strawman their position (or them yours) by using different definition for the same word.

Once someone has said "This is the definition i am using" the debate is over, you now know what they are saying regardless of whether or not you agree with their definition.

debating definitions of words because you think they are using it incorrectly, is a waste of time because it does not change their argument... you are free to imagine they used the word you think is correct and get back to the actual topic.

That really doesn't work.

Any number of times we've had creationists come here and use their (creationist) version of scientific words relating to evolution, etc, etc. In other words, their strawman versions of words/terms. They insist everybody else uses their usage of the word - whilst we insist they use the common usage of words, especially scientific terms.

Either they comply or they end up using their strawman version, and everyone else uses the proper term - and continues to correct their misrepresentation of the term.

There's no point in catering to whimsical usage of terms: people in debates/discussions should use the correct usage of terms.

TJump wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:Further, your quote gives a false impression of the issue.

all quotes and references provided PROVE i am correct.

That is not the case. You've quoted sentences here and there but - read in context of the full paragraph(s) - they do not support what you're claiming.

TJump wrote:Any disagreement is caused by your misinterpretation of the words.

Or yours.

TJump wrote:you are misinteriting when it says "pantheism equates the universe to god"

The statement is quite clear, and leaves no room for doubt:

At its most general, pantheism may be understood positively as the view that God is identical with the cosmos, the view that there exists nothing which is outside of God, or else negatively as the rejection of any view that considers God as distinct from the universe.

The caveat being, "At its most general".

TJump wrote:Equating the universe to god = the universe is non contingent/etenral.

Not so. Our space-time continuum is not the whole universe. Even the multiverse may or may not have a cause.

TJump wrote:Equating the universe to god DOES NOT MEAN the universe is a personal being.

No one has claimed this.

TJump wrote:[the same applies to the term deity]

Nor this.

TJump wrote:As indicated by the quote i provided which EXPLICITLY States Most pantheists DO NOT believe in a personal universe.

" 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.""

Pantheists may "usually" deny the existence of a personal God - but pantheism per se doesn't preclude the existence of a personal God.

Do you understand the difference?

TJump wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:The fact that your version resulted in you're implying he was an idiot could hardly be called charitable by your definition, could it?

Being charitable only applies to arguments so you do not misinterpret the point being made. Insults are ad homs, they are irrelevant to any point made on either side. The reason i will not engage with him is because if after it has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt my definition is correct he is unable to understand then nothing can be gained from further communication with someone that intellectually limited.

If i say 1+1=2,
He says no its not,
Then i prove it does
Then he denies again...

Then he is too stupid to understand and i shrug and move on.

If you agree with him, you're wrong.

You openly called him an idiot, having first implied that he was.

Sparhafoc and I cited 4 sources that showed you were incorrect in your claim. You quoted a sentence here and there to "prove" you were right, whilst ignoring the context in which they appeared. This is called quote-mining.

For example, after your oft-quoted sentence - from a source he cited contradicting your claims:

Einstein was a pantheist but rejected any notion of a personal God. (Einstein 2010, 325) 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, the matter calls for more considered attention.

The last sentence puts the preceding sentences in context.

All he had done was show that you were wrong, and you started implying he was an idiot, before openly calling him an idiot, and then blocking him. This is a classic tactic of "fundies".

You still have not provided a link to a source for your claim other than to tell Sparhafoc to "Go Google 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
Mon Jun 18, 2018 9:45 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,

TJump wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:Yet leaves the door open for theists: if one says it's unknown if it's possible for something to exist outside of (all) space-time or not, the theists will jump in with "Yes it's possible: God!".

Naturalism removes this possibility.

No. Metaphysical naturalism (The position there is absolutely no supernatural world), is equally unjustified as theism.

Arguably, absence of evidence is evidence of absence, and given that there supposedly can't be evidence of the supernatural (God) - because God can break the rules - the argument that there's no such thing as "the supernatural" would be reasonable.

And the second cited criterion of pantheism - "the view that there exists nothing which is outside of God" - would mean that there can't be anything outside space-time.

TJump wrote:Methodological naturalism (the position we have no verifiable reason to believe in the supernatural), is justified.

I trust you realize that MN is not contingent on PN?

TJump wrote:If you make the claim "There is no God", you hold the burden of proof. (which you can't prove)
If you make the claim "There is no reason to believe in God", they hold the burden of proof.

With a capital "G" perhaps - but would you say the same for lower-case "gods"?

TJump wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:As I've said, we've done it here with other theists - only the disingenuous deny this point.

then you have conceded the point.... you need to explain things to theists, i dont. I can just say "Naturalistic pantheism".

No, we haven't - because if they try to stonewall, they'll be called out on it.

They either have to accept the truth or be revealed as not being interested in learning.

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 10:10 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:That really doesn't work.

Any number of times we've had creationists come here and use their (creationist) version of scientific words relating to evolution, etc, etc. In other words, their strawman versions of words/terms. They insist everybody else uses their usage of the word - whilst we insist they use the common usage of words, especially scientific terms.

Either they comply or they end up using their strawman version, and everyone else uses the proper term - and continues to correct their misrepresentation of the term.


This is basic philosophy......... The person holding the position/making the argument ALWAYS gets to define the terms in it. third parties are NEVER allowed to define someone else position/terms thats is BY DEFINITION a strawman.

Creationists are not holding the position of science they are changing the definition = strawman

tHERE ARE SOME SCIENTISTS WHO ARE ALSO CREATIONISTS WHO BELIEVE THOSE CREATIONIST DEFINITIONS.... doeS thaT prove your definition of science WRONG? NO..... because the CORRECT DEFINITION is the one used by the MAJORITY of people who subscribe to the position....

in this conversation YOU are the creationist imposing you BS definition....

Dragan Glas wrote:There's no point in catering to whimsical usage of terms: people in debates/discussions should use the correct usage of terms.


If the MAJORITY of pantheists (hence the USUALLY in the quote) use the definition i am using than ANY OTHER is the 'whimsical' one, again i am PROVEN correct. Q.E.D.

AND "for many pantheists rejection of a personal deity is the definitive mark or most important element of their position. " IT IS THE CORE DEFINING MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF PANTHEISM... you have to be an idiot not to understand im right.

This topic has been over for a long time... admit you are wrong and please move on.

If you continue with this drivel i will just block you as well because this has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt of anyone who isn't an idiot.

You are wrong. the context only makes quilfiers and exceptions to what pantheists USUALLY BELIEVE, which is the definition i am using THE MAJORITY POSITION.




Dragan Glas wrote:
At its most general, pantheism may be understood positively as the view that God is identical with the cosmos, the view that there exists nothing which is outside of God, or else negatively as the rejection of any view that considers God as distinct from the universe.


The caveat being, "At its most general".


literal definition: taking words in their usual or most basic [i.e. general] sense

THE LITERAL DEFINITION OF PANTHEISM IS THE ONE I AM USING, SO I AM CORRECT.




Dragan Glas wrote:Not so. Our space-time continuum is not the whole universe. Even the multiverse may or may not have a cause.


universe when being used colloquially can mean literally everything....... again your mistake i was not using the physics definition USE THE PRINCIPLE OF CHARITY.

Dragan Glas wrote:
TJump wrote:Equating the universe to god DOES NOT MEAN the universe is a personal being.

No one has claimed this.


Then you have no point? I am also equating an impersonal universe to God with my usage of naturalistic pantheism, i.e. they are both eternal/all powerful origin of everything.


Dragan Glas wrote:Pantheists may "usually" deny the existence of a personal God - but pantheism per se doesn't preclude the existence of a personal God.

Do you understand the difference?


AGAIN I DON'T CARE HOW OTHER PEOPLE DEFINE THE TERM. The fact other people define the term differently IS NOT RELEVANT TO MY DEFINITION.

The fact that some people may define squares to be three sided object DOES NOT MEAN square are not 4 sided objects.... if you are to stupid to understand this i done with you.

If i define x=1, therefore x + 4 = 5, and you say "But this other person says x = 4..." that's a starwman of MY argument... and you need to be an idiot to think that is a valid argument.


Dragan Glas wrote:You still have not provided a link to a source for your claim other than to tell Sparhafoc to "Go Google it".
[/quote]

AGAIN ALL SOURCES YOU HAVE PROVIDED HAVE PROVEN ME CORRECT.

last warning if you continue with this drivel im not wasting any more of my time on you.
Last edited by TJump on Tue Jun 19, 2018 3:41 am, edited 6 times in total.
Tue Jun 19, 2018 12:06 am
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:Arguably, absence of evidence is evidence of absence,


argument from ignorance fallacy.

Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.

Dragan Glas wrote:and given that there supposedly can't be evidence of the supernatural (God) - because God can break the rules - the argument that there's no such thing as "the supernatural" would be reasonable.


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.


Dragan Glas wrote:And the second cited criterion of pantheism - "the view that there exists nothing which is outside of God" - would mean that there can't be anything outside space-time.


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


Dragan Glas wrote:
TJump wrote:Methodological naturalism (the position we have no verifiable reason to believe in the supernatural), is justified.

I trust you realize that MN is not contingent on PN?


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...

Dragan Glas wrote:
TJump wrote:If you make the claim "There is no God", you hold the burden of proof. (which you can't prove)
If you make the claim "There is no reason to believe in God", they hold the burden of proof.

With a capital "G" perhaps - but would you say the same for lower-case "gods"?



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


Dragan Glas wrote:They either have to accept the truth or be revealed as not being interested in learning.


Again my point was proven Q.E.D.
Tue Jun 19, 2018 12:20 am
AkamiaUser avatarPosts: 151Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 11:41 pmLocation: Alaska Gender: Time Lord

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

TJump. Dude.

You need to take a chill pill. :?

I think you've become a little too emotionally invested in this. Step back, calm down, and try to respond to people without breaking stuff. You started out in this thread somewhat reasonable, at least in appearance. What happened? Did someone literally push a berserk button on your person and you've been stuck that way ever since?

So far, people here don't seem to agree with your terms. I understand that's troublesome for you, but lashing out at everyone about it isn't doing you any favors. Blocking them for that, even less so. :|

Calm down and think about why these people might actually be disagreeing with you. It's definitely not out of malice, and these people are certainly not idiots. I understand where you're coming from with regard to wanting to use your own definitions of certain terms for your argument, but definitions don't just go by unexamined like that, even in philosophy, where you claim the one presenting the argument decides how terms should be used. You really do have to be able to defend the definitions of the terms you're using. It can be frustrating, yes, especially when it appears your opposition is adamantly opposed to how you use the terms you've defined no matter what you say or do, but trust me when I say that your conduct up to this point is anything but productive. I dare say it may actually have hurt your case; this irrational anger you're displaying in your posts is very likely to convince people you're not worth engaging with. Not necessarily your arguments/terms/whatever, but you specifically.

Best as I can tell from reading this thread, between you, Dragan Glas, and Sparhafoc, you were the first to become hostile, and have only escalated it since. It may very well be the case that DG and Spar are being utterly moronic here (admittedly, from what I'm reading, I doubt that very much) but your method of handling the situation is rather poor, whether your position stands or not.

Anger makes you stupid. Try being calm and collected instead; that usually works much better in this environment. It's no guarantee your position will win out in the end, but at least you'll have greater potential to learn something rather than ineffectually typing sentences that nobody will take seriously because you've made a complete ass of yourself.
The very thing that gives us humans our advanced cognitive abilities can also be our greatest weakness.
Tue Jun 19, 2018 2:26 am
TJumpPosts: 113Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:20 am Gender: Time Lord

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

Akamia wrote:TJump. Dude.


I stopped reading at dude. I'm not interested in your tone policing or appeal to emotion rambing. Make an argument or go away.
Tue Jun 19, 2018 2:49 am
AkamiaUser avatarPosts: 151Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2016 11:41 pmLocation: Alaska Gender: Time Lord

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

TJump wrote:
Akamia wrote:TJump. Dude.


I stopped reading at dude. I'm not interested in your tone policing or appeal to emotion rambing. Make an argument or go away.

Fine. :roll: You're on your own, bud.
The very thing that gives us humans our advanced cognitive abilities can also be our greatest weakness.
Tue Jun 19, 2018 2:54 am
TJumpPosts: 113Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:20 am Gender: Time Lord

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

Akamia wrote:You're on your own, bud.


.... i also have facts and reality on my side. Im not interested in emotionally manipulating people or acting nice, im going to tell you exactly what i think. And if your objectively wrong and are to stupid to realize it, i'm going to tell you. and if you still cant realize it, nothing you will say will have vlaued because ur too dumb, so i block ur words form every appear because they objectively have no value.
Tue Jun 19, 2018 2:58 am
PreviousNext
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  Page 8 of 26
 [ 506 posts ] 
Return to Religion & Irreligion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests
cron