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 11 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

*SD* wrote:
It's You're not ur

It's You're not your

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



I'm not going to spend the time to spell check, use the principle of charity to figure out the meaning and dont waste my time.



*SD* wrote:
No shit. If you keep blocking people then who are you going to have this conversation (which you started) with? C'mon, man. Blocking doesn't get anyone anywhere and the conversation (which, again - you started) will just continue without you. Surely that's not what you want?


I started a conversation about the argument i presented in the OP, as i said multiple times im not interested in debating definitions. If you disagree with my definition you are free to pretend i used a different word, move on to the actual argument i made.

If someone is unable to stay on topic and can only focus on definition that they have already been proven wrong about..... then i can learn nothing by talking with them, its just a waste of my time.

All the points on your other post are all great questions that are worth discussing and are not a waste of time... i'm not just blocking people who disagree, i only block people who are wasting my time and have nothing valuable to contribute.
Last edited by TJump on Wed Jun 20, 2018 1:23 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Wed Jun 20, 2018 12:55 pm
TJumpPosts: 113Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:20 am Gender: Time Lord

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

Steelmage99 wrote:I am not saying that X doesn't exist.
I am saying that every time we conduct an experiment (in the broad sense of the word) that fails it's stated goal of demonstrating X, we move a bit further towards "doesn't exist" on a spectrum and a bit away from "exists".

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

I am simply being pragmatic and practical.


That's perfectly reasonable for the most part, except a failed test is not counter evidence.. if you positively belive there is no X you need evidence demonstrating X does not exist simply saying there is no evidence for X/failed tested to find X, isn't enough.

absence of evidence is evidence you have no reason to believe in X. (epistemology)... I lack belief in X (they hold burden of proof)

absence of evidence is not evidence X does not exist (ontology)... I positively believe there is no X (you hold burden of proof)
Wed Jun 20, 2018 1:03 pm
psikhrangkurPosts: 121Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2018 3:30 pm Gender: Pinecone

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

TJump wrote:I'm not going to spend the time to spell check, use the principle of charity to figure out the meaning and dont waste my time.


This is a run-on sentence.
Wed Jun 20, 2018 1:07 pm
TJumpPosts: 113Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:20 am Gender: Time Lord

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

*SD* wrote:This is a bit weird. Although I have heard it argued this way before.

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


That's only true if your theory makes testable falsifiable predictions, which is why such prediction are so important to science. However you can always use ad hoc reasoning to justify any failed test... "we didn't see X during that test because the stars were not in alignment"

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


You could be dreaming and when you wake up you may see a real live elephant has crushed your desk by standing on it... ad hoc reasoning can be used to justify anything.


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


You can say that there are apparently no elephants on the desk, you cannot say there are absolutely no elephants on the desk.

Because we lack any means for absolute certainty, we can only make claims about apparent reality (methodological) not what reality is really like (metaphysics/ontology)

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


The only difference is that i would say, "I lack belief in..." or "I have no reason to belive..." or "as far as i can tell there are no..." rather then "there are no...", has the same pragmatic result with better philosophical grounding.


*SD* wrote:So for claims where evidence could reasonably be expected, the statement 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' does not hold true.


"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" -- Carl Sagan
Last edited by TJump on Wed Jun 20, 2018 1:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Wed Jun 20, 2018 1:15 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2458Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

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

TJump wrote:
*SD* wrote:
It's You're not ur

It's You're not your

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



I'm not going to spend the time to spell check, use the principle of charity to figure out the meaning and dont waste my time.


I'm not going to spend the time to write legibly; I'll make you do all the work to understand. Then I will complain when you don't understand.

TJump's principle of charity means he calls people 'idiot'.




TJump wrote:
*SD* wrote:
No shit. If you keep blocking people then who are you going to have this conversation (which you started) with? C'mon, man. Blocking doesn't get anyone anywhere and the conversation (which, again - you started) will just continue without you. Surely that's not what you want?


I started a conversation about the argument i presented in the OP, as i said multiple times im not interested in debating definitions. If you disagree with my definition you are free to pretend i used a different word, move on to the actual argument i made.


And also free to contend with that definition when it is idiosyncratic and causes the argument to become senseless.


TJump wrote:If someone is unable to stay on topic and can only focus on definition that they have already been proven wrong about..... then i can learn nothing by talking with them, its just a waste of my time.


It's all about TJump. This entire forum is here just to jump the hoops he prescribes.


TJump wrote:All the points on your other post are all great questions that are worth discussing and are not a waste of time... i'm not just blocking people who disagree, i only block people who are wasting my time and have nothing valuable to contribute.


In reality, no one can waste his time as he elects to read posts, so he's the one opting to spend his time accordingly.

In reality, disagreeing with TJump is what results in him blocking (going by evidence in this thread) - he simply declares that he has 'proven' his case, calls other people time-wasters, then idiots, then blocks them.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Wed Jun 20, 2018 1:29 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2458Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

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

TJump wrote:"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" -- Carl Sagan



Oh look! TJump knows who Carl Sagan is.

If there's anyone left he hasn't blocked, point him to Dragon in my Garage:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Dragon_in_My_Garage

"The Dragon in My Garage" is a chapter in Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World, which presents an analogy where the existence of God is equated with a hypothetical insistence that there is a dragon living in someone's garage. This is similar to Russell's Teapot in the way it forms an apt analogy for the concepts of the burden of proof and falsifiability.



Guess TJump must have missed the bit below - probably didn't want to spend the time reading it.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Wed Jun 20, 2018 1:32 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2458Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

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

And...

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

In carefully designed scientific experiments, even null results can be evidence of absence. For instance, a hypothesis may be falsified if a vital predicted observation is not found empirically.


Absence of evidence for claim A can be considered evidence of absence if A necessitates a particular outcome or observation that is not then detected.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Wed Jun 20, 2018 1:39 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2458Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

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

TJump's principle of charity:

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



The real principle of charity:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.[1] In its narrowest sense, the goal of this methodological principle is to avoid attributing irrationality, logical fallacies, or falsehoods to the others' statements, when a coherent, rational interpretation of the statements is available. According to Simon Blackburn[2] "it constrains the interpreter to maximize the truth or rationality in the subject's sayings."


TJump's rendition (much as with the words he used before that lead him to start calling people idiots for challenging his rendition) is diametrically opposite, wholly antithetical, and flat out wrong as a valid rendition of the principle of charity.

To wit; TJump's rendition of the principle of charity is neither charitable, nor principled.


Of course, following posts show that the principle of charity only works one way: in his favour.

So what we're supposed to take from him calling people an idiot is a rational, calm, and reasonable rejection of their argument which was unfortunately phrased with the word 'idiot' and resulted in him engaging in censorship to not have to acknowledge his nonsensical behavior.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Wed Jun 20, 2018 1:44 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2458Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

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

I'm always intrigued by solipsism.

Kids hide under the covers because if they can't see the monster, it can't see them.

Such kids are lucky there's no monster, or it'd be eating them alive regardless of whether they deigned to acknowledge it or not.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Wed Jun 20, 2018 1:50 pm
psikhrangkurPosts: 121Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2018 3:30 pm Gender: Pinecone

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

Personally, I don't see why the idea that pantheism doesn't necessarily call for a personal, anthropomorphic god is even relevant to this argument. To suggest that "all things compose an all-encompassing, immanent god' seems to me to run contrary to the concept of atheism. My response to pantheism would be similar to my response to Gman's argument concerning other religions that worship real things as gods: I simply don't see any reason to call it a god.
Wed Jun 20, 2018 1:59 pm
TJumpPosts: 113Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:20 am Gender: Time Lord

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

psikhrangkur wrote:Personally, I don't see why the idea that pantheism doesn't necessarily call for a personal, anthropomorphic god is even relevant to this argument. To suggest that "all things compose an all-encompassing, immanent god' seems to me to run contrary to the concept of atheism. My response to pantheism would be similar to my response to Gman's argument concerning other religions that worship real things as gods: I simply don't see any reason to call it a god.


It's not relevant to the argument... they just wasting my time which is why i blocked them.

Pantheism defines God as an non personal eternal non contingent origin of everything, i.e. eternal universe. Which means it is effectively the same as atheism.

This would not fit the theists definition of God, but there definition is no more or less valid than any other.
Wed Jun 20, 2018 2:15 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2458Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

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

psikhrangkur wrote:Personally, I don't see why the idea that pantheism doesn't necessarily call for a personal, anthropomorphic god is even relevant to this argument. To suggest that "all things compose an all-encompassing, immanent god' seems to me to run contrary to the concept of atheism. My response to pantheism would be similar to my response to Gman's argument concerning other religions that worship real things as gods: I simply don't see any reason to call it a god.


:lol:

You're trying to get into this Elite Club, aren't you? :D
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Wed Jun 20, 2018 2:22 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2458Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

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

TJump wrote:
psikhrangkur wrote:Personally, I don't see why the idea that pantheism doesn't necessarily call for a personal, anthropomorphic god is even relevant to this argument. To suggest that "all things compose an all-encompassing, immanent god' seems to me to run contrary to the concept of atheism. My response to pantheism would be similar to my response to Gman's argument concerning other religions that worship real things as gods: I simply don't see any reason to call it a god.


It's not relevant to the argument... they just wasting my time which is why i blocked them.

Pantheism defines God as an non personal eternal non contingent origin of everything, i.e. eternal universe. Which means it is effectively the same as atheism.


Rather, this is why he blocked us - because we didn't agree with him, and he couldn't defeat the reasons we brought to show why it's wrong.

If it's 'not relevant' - why does he insist everyone genuflect to his rendition?


TJump wrote:This would not fit the theists definition of God, but there definition is no more or less valid than any other.


If we're in Post-Truthism (jeez, those goalposts must be made of some hi-tech material considering the fluidity with which TJump moves them about) then why is he so upset? If our definitions are valid, even though he's argued teeth and nail they're not, then what was his justification for calling us idiots and blocking us?

Perhaps, as with his sentence structure and spelling, he should spend a little more time and effort on the theoretical side before leaping to toss stuff out?
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Wed Jun 20, 2018 2:25 pm
psikhrangkurPosts: 121Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2018 3:30 pm Gender: Pinecone

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

TJump wrote:Pantheism defines God as an non personal eternal non contingent origin of everything, i.e. eternal universe. Which means it is effectively the same as atheism.

This would not fit the theists definition of God, but there definition is no more or less valid than any other.


It isn't the same thing as atheism. By accepting pantheism, I accept that there is a god. Now that I've accepted that there is a god, I can't be an atheist by definition.
Wed Jun 20, 2018 2:25 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2458Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

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

psikhrangkur wrote:
TJump wrote:Pantheism defines God as an non personal eternal non contingent origin of everything, i.e. eternal universe. Which means it is effectively the same as atheism.

This would not fit the theists definition of God, but there definition is no more or less valid than any other.


It isn't the same thing as atheism. By accepting pantheism, I accept that there is a god. Now that I've accepted that there is a god, I can't be an atheist by definition.



We're going to need to get some badges.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Wed Jun 20, 2018 2:27 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2458Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

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

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/st ... b0fdc9e875

Stephen Colbert Starts ‘Trump Attacked Me On Twitter’ Hall Of Fame


Here we've got the TJump Blocked Me on a Discussion Site Founded to Counter Censorship

Note that there's only one letter difference between their names! /cue spooky music
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Wed Jun 20, 2018 2:31 pm
TJumpPosts: 113Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:20 am Gender: Time Lord

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

psikhrangkur wrote:
TJump wrote:Pantheism defines God as an non personal eternal non contingent origin of everything, i.e. eternal universe. Which means it is effectively the same as atheism.

This would not fit the theists definition of God, but there definition is no more or less valid than any other.


It isn't the same thing as atheism. By accepting pantheism, I accept that there is a god. Now that I've accepted that there is a god, I can't be an atheist by definition.


The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a key term or phrase in an argument is used in an ambiguous way, with one meaning in one portion of the argument and then another meaning in another portion of the argument.

Two different definitions of God, use the principle of charity.

The God of pantheism is the universe. Atheist believe in the universe.

I will not waste any more of my time on this issue.
Wed Jun 20, 2018 2:34 pm
*SD*User avatarPosts: 340Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 1:00 amLocation: Wales, UK Gender: Male

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

TJump wrote:I'm not going to spend the time to spell check, use the principle of charity to figure out the meaning and dont waste my time.


I know what you meant, you arrogant little berk. I just don't think it's too much to ask of anyone over the age of ten not to write in 'txt spk' - especially when discussing fairly in-depth ideas such as those floated in this thread. And definitely not when boasting about the sheer magnitude of ones intellectual penis.

I don't care if you make spelling errors, that's not the point, the point is if you want to be taken seriously at least make the effort to write properly.

That's only true if your theory makes testable falsifiable predictions, which is why such prediction are so important to science. However you can always use ad hoc reasoning to justify any failed test... "we didn't see X during that test because the stars were not in alignment"


Who did that? In my elephant example no stars or other ad-hoc reasoning were involved.

You could be dreaming and when you wake up you may see a real live elephant has crushed your desk by standing on it... ad hoc reasoning can be used to justify anything.


Who was dreaming in my elephant example? At what point did you decide to inject this possibility into an otherwise clear example that demonstrates a bit of an issue with your position? Are there such things as desks and elephants? Can people be in a state of consciousness that is not dreaming? In other words, awake?

You can say that there are apparently no elephants on the desk, you cannot say there are absolutely no elephants on the desk.


I didn't use the word 'absolutely' - I said it is reasonable to conclude, at the very least tentatively, that there was no elephant on the desk at the time of investigation.

This is not to say that we couldn't return at a later time to find such an elephant on the desk. The ruling out of a possibility at a given time does not preclude one from altering ones position at a later time given NEW evidence.

What would you like me to do? Examine the desk, find no trace of an elephant but still seriously entertain the notion that there really is one there?

we can only make claims about apparent reality (methodological) not what reality is really like (metaphysics/ontology)


Are you a solipsist?

Reality, as I perceive it is as real as it's going to get - for me. Whatever the rules/conditions of that apparent reality are, are as real as I'm able to experience, even if they're not externally real. Brain in a vat etc. There doesn't appear to be a way out of this, I'm not aware of a way to falsify hard solipsism. So, interesting as it can (potentially) be, I usually can't be bothered to talk about it.

The only difference is that i would say, "I lack belief in..." or "I have no reason to belive..." or "as far as i can tell there are no..." rather then "there are no...", has the same pragmatic result with better philosophical grounding.


So where does this actually get us? I think you're splitting hairs unnecessarily here.

I'm going to stick with 'there is no elephant on my desk at this present time'

Explain to me why I should not do this.
Image
Wed Jun 20, 2018 2:41 pm
WWW
*SD*User avatarPosts: 340Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 1:00 amLocation: Wales, UK Gender: Male

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

TJump wrote:Pantheism defines God as an non personal eternal non contingent origin of everything, i.e. eternal universe. Which means it is effectively the same as atheism


No, it isn't. Are you aware that atheists don't believe in God, therefore God can't be the origin of everything - contingent or otherwise?
Image
Wed Jun 20, 2018 2:44 pm
WWW
psikhrangkurPosts: 121Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2018 3:30 pm Gender: Pinecone

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

TJump wrote:The fallacy of equivocation occurs when a key term or phrase in an argument is used in an ambiguous way, with one meaning in one portion of the argument and then another meaning in another portion of the argument.

Two different definitions of God, use the principle of charity.

The God of pantheism is the universe. Atheist believe in the universe.

I will not waste any more of my time on this issue.


However, they do not believe in a god. By defining god this way, you render atheism an impossible position. The principle of charity doesn't make any difference here, as what you specifically mean when you say "god" makes no difference here.

This idea of yours seems predicated on the idea that atheists deny only specific iterations of the concept of a god, but by that logic one would necessarily consider all people to be atheists, as all people reject some specific instance of the concept of god.

Again, this is the same logic posed by Gman, except he has a better understanding of the implications of it: if there is some iteration of god that atheists must accept, then there can be no atheists.
Wed Jun 20, 2018 2:47 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  Page 11 of 26
 [ 506 posts ] 
Return to Religion & Irreligion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests
cron