What's the strongest argument for atheism?

Author: Fallaneze

Posts

Total: 459
#331
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,796
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
they also are "non deists" if the whole point of the word is to say "no God"
but that's not the "whole point"

many people who call themselves "atheists" are deists and or pantheists or monists (like myself)

many people who call themselves "atheists" are apatheists (who simply don't care if any sort of gods exist or not)

theists love to oversimplify "atheism" into a single rare form of anti-theism which purports to make a claim that "there is no definition of god(s) that can qualify for any definition of exists"

i'd call this a very convenient straw-man argument
#332
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,332
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Fallaneze
@3RU7AL
To the ' creator God ' and their illogical, lack of common sense and lack of critical thinking;

....naught is created nor destroyed, only transformed......see 1st law of thermodynamics, that,

transposes over to what Ive been stating for some years now;

...finite, occupied space Universe cannot be created nor destroyed, only transformed...

Ergo a non-creator God/Universe/The Whole-Sha-bang etc.

@ = Universe

......space@space....

space = the macro-infinite, truly non-occupied space, outside of { beyond } the finite, occupied space Universe @

Three kinds of human on the above issue:

1} ignorance, ---ex a 2 year old---

2} malicious intent,  ---ex those who know better, yet behave like a moron---

3} logical common sense critical thinking, that, is most often based on scientific observations aka empirical evidence.

Space: only two primary kinds

1} truly non-occupied and,

2} occupied.

#333
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 117
1
2
5
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
without this omnipotent omniscient creator

NOthing has ever or will ever or can ever "exist" (in all conceivable senses of the word)

Yes, I agree. This does not contradict what I am saying.

It still does not mean that we all exist in the same way.
#334
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 117
1
2
5
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
but that's not the "whole point"

many people who call themselves "atheists" are deists and or pantheists or monists (like myself)

many people who call themselves "atheists" are apatheists (who simply don't care if any sort of gods exist or not)

theists love to oversimplify "atheism" into a single rare form of anti-theism which purports to make a claim that "there is no definition of god(s) that can qualify for any definition of exists"

i'd call this a very convenient straw-man argument

That is not the mainstream idea of atheism. At least not from what I have seen. I am willing to say I am wrong about that if you can show me that that is what atheists are.

Either way, this particular part of the argument has no bearing on the main points I am making and it is also very quickly falling into useless semantics.
#335
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 117
1
2
5
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
therefore MONISM
No that is not Monism.

Monism says there is no distinction whatsoever. In any way. It is all the same. There is no such thing as duality.

That is not what I am saying.

I am still positing that there is a common substrate while at the same there is something else that is different and distinguishes Him from us.

For example: The commonality between God and man is our intellect and will (they are not the same Intellect and will, but have the ability to be united as one. Remember "one" does not mean the same as "as one".) But we are different because we are created, He is not. We have an animal nature, he does not. We are finite He is not, etc.
#336
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,796
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
there is a common substrate
because an omnipotent omniscient creator of all things

would be forced to make everything out of itself

because NOthing else exists

and NOthing can exist outside of the omnipotent omniscient creator of all things
#337
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,796
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
Either way, this particular part of the argument has no bearing on the main points I am making and it is also very quickly falling into useless semantics.
every argument is a semantic argument if you don't rigorously define your terms
#338
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 117
1
2
5
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
would be forced to make everything out of itself

Out of itself... completely, as He can only make a whole copy of Himself always??? Absolutely not! That is defying common sense and the principle of non-contradiction.
#339
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 117
1
2
5
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
every argument is a semantic argument if you don't rigorously define your terms
Ok then! Give me your definition of atheism and a justification for the definition.
#340
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,796
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
without this omnipotent omniscient creator

NOthing has ever or will ever or can ever "exist" (in all conceivable senses of the word)
Yes, I agree. This does not contradict what I am saying.
right, but this means that NOthing can exist that is not OOC, part of OOC, and animated by the will of OOC
#341
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,796
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
Out of itself... completely, as He can only make a whole copy of Himself always??? Absolutely not! That is defying common sense and the principle of non-contradiction.
it is impossible to "make a copy" of OOC

because you can't have two things that are both omnipotent and omniscient and the creator of all things

but

OOC can manipulate variations within itself

and each of these "things" is a small portion of OOC without being the whole
#342
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 117
1
2
5
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
right, but this means that NOthing can exist that is not OOC, part of OOC, and animated by the will of OOC

it is impossible to "make a copy" of OOC

because you can't have two things that are both omnipotent and omniscient and the creator of all things

but

OOC can manipulate variations within itself

and each of these "things" is a small portion of OOC without being the whole

Your part that says "NOthing can exist that is not OOC" contradicts your next point of "You cannot have two things that are both OOC."

How do your other points above correspond witht the fact that your initial if-then syllogysm clearly indicates that everything is god?
#343
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,796
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
Ok then! Give me your definition of atheism and a justification for the definition.
Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities.

atheism is the psychological state of lacking the belief that God exists.

ATHEISM is a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods.

Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods. It is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about a person.

Theism is the belief in a god or gods. The prefix 'a' [in front of theism] means; 'without' or 'lack of'. Therefore, atheism means 'without a belief in a god



identifying someone by what they are not, would be like calling everyone on earth who does NOT collect stamps a non-stamp-collector

calling someone a non-stamp-collector does not inform you about any other aspect of that individual's personality


i like to keep it simple, ATHEISM = NOT A THEIST

everyone who identifies as something OTHER than a THEIST qualifies (all of the dictionaries implicitly refer to the term "god" in a theistic context)

of course, i'm more than happy to seek common ground with your own personally preferred definitions
#344
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,796
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
Your part that says "NOthing can exist that is not OOC" contradicts your next point of "You cannot have two things that are both OOC."

How do your other points above correspond witht the fact that your initial if-then syllogysm clearly indicates that everything is god?
every extant thing must logically be part of OOC

but each part is not the whole

in the same way that your finger is part of your body, but your finger is not your whole body
#345
Amber
Amber's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 199
1
2
6
Amber's avatar
Amber
1
2
6
-->
@TwoMan
My only argument would be that without evidence, there is no reason to believe in theism.
Bingo! 

#346
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 117
1
2
5
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
every extant thing must logically be part of OOC

but each part is not the whole

in the same way that your finger is part of your body, but your finger is not your whole body

And how does this not contradict you if then syllogism?
#347
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 117
1
2
5
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Atheism, in the broadest sense, is an absence of belief in the existence of deities.

atheism is the psychological state of lacking the belief that God exists.

ATHEISM is a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods.

Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods. It is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about a person.

Theism is the belief in a god or gods. The prefix 'a' [in front of theism] means; 'without' or 'lack of'. Therefore, atheism means 'without a belief in a god
All of these definitions of atheism say "a lack of belief in any god"

Deist: One who believes in God based on reason. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deism

everyone who identifies as something OTHER than a THEIST qualifies 


How does that definition of an atheist fit to a deist?
#348
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,796
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
every extant thing must logically be part of OOC

but each part is not the whole

in the same way that your finger is part of your body, but your finger is not your whole body

And how does this not contradict you if then syllogism?
it's pretty simple

everything taken all together = ooc

each individual thing = part of ooc
#349
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,796
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
How does that definition of an atheist fit to a deist?
a deist is functionally indistinguishable from an atheist

they don't pray

they don't worship

they don't perform rituals


also, you're overlooking the implication that the word "god" means omniscient omnipotent creator YHWH to almost everyone raised in christian societies


i could say "i worship NANABOZHO, the native american creation god" - and christians would still call me an atheist because i don't believe in their version of god and they don't believe NANABOZHO is real, because they don't believe any other gods are real (YHWH is the only god that qualifies as a god in their minds)
#350
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 117
1
2
5
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
it's pretty simple

everything taken all together = ooc

each individual thing = part of ooc

So then the universe is god.
So all that exists comes from the universe.
So the universe had what exists before it caused what exists
So things exist and do not exist at the same time and the same way.

A blatant contradiction. I am not buying it. You will have to do better than that.
#351
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 117
1
2
5
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
a deist is functionally indistinguishable from an atheist

We are not talking about what they do. We are talking about what they are.


i could say "i worship NANABOZHO, the native american creation god" - and christians would still call me an atheist... 
I dont think so. I certainly would not call you an atheist.
#352
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,415
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@MAV99
We are not talking about what they do. We are talking about what they are.
So you say.


Functioning organic masses are amazing but true, within their own context.

In terms of functionality, the do and the are, are essentially the same.

Though we can certainly contrive narratives to suggest otherwise.

But contriving narratives is also no more or less functional.
#353
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,796
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
A blatant contradiction. I am not buying it. You will have to do better than that.
energy cannot be created or destroyed

it is a fundamental principle known as the law of conservation of energy
#354
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,796
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
a deist is functionally indistinguishable from an atheist
We are not talking about what they do. We are talking about what they are.
so, you're harping at a distinction without a difference ?

what is the point of distinguishing TERMINOLOGY if the two are functionally identical ?


"Baruch Spinoza was not an atheist in the modern meaning of the word. He believed in the existence of a perfectly logical god, but not in the way traditional religions present him/her. He was called an atheist in his lifetime because then the term meant someone who does not believe in the orthodox view of God."
#355
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,351
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@MAV99
Why a perfectly logical and reasonable conclusion begotten from reasoning that started with an experiance, also needs evidence that can be experianced
The experience of this evidence are the repeated results
#356
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 117
1
2
5
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
energy cannot be created or destroyed

it is a fundamental principle known as the law of conservation of energy
Ok. Explain what you mean here.

Because you still ultimately have not answered the contradiction that a thing as a whole is causing itself, which is impossible.
#357
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 117
1
2
5
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
what is the point of distinguishing TERMINOLOGY if the two are functionally identical ?
Because a thing is not what it does.

Unless you care to prove to me that a thing is what it does, This principle stands.

#358
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,796
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
energy cannot be created or destroyed

it is a fundamental principle known as the law of conservation of energy
Ok. Explain what you mean here.

Because you still ultimately have not answered the contradiction that a thing as a whole is causing itself, which is impossible.
(IFF) OOC (THEN) everything that exists is part of OOC

in the same way one of your skin cells is part of you without being the whole you
#359
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,796
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MAV99
what is the point of distinguishing TERMINOLOGY if the two are functionally identical ?
Because a thing is not what it does.

Unless you care to prove to me that a thing is what it does, This principle stands.
how do you describe a hammer ?
#360
MAV99
MAV99's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 117
1
2
5
MAV99's avatar
MAV99
1
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) OOC (THEN) everything that exists is part of OOC
Ok, now you have changed your syllogism.

And what do you mean by "part of" there are different ways to be a part of something.