㊙️ THE STRONGEST ARGUMENT FOR ATHEISM (TSAFA)

Author: 3RU7AL
Ethics
intp
Anarchy
GNOSTIC
informationwar

Posts

Total: 49
Topic's author
#1
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
㊙️ THE STRONGEST ARGUMENT FOR ATHEISM (TSAFA)



there is no argument required to be unconvinced



are you perhaps unconvinced of the claim that bigfootspacealienslochnessmonster is real ? [presumably you are unconvinced]

do you feel compelled to fabricate an argument defending your (presumed) non-belief in bigfootspacealienslochnessmonster ? [presumably you are not compelled]


are you perhaps "not-an-astronaut" ? [presumably you are not]

are you perhaps "not-a-dinosaur" ? [presumably you are not]

are you perhaps "not-a-hippie" ? [presumably you are not]


do you feel compelled to fabricate an argument defending your lack of self-identifying as one of these labels ? [presumably you are not]



THE CLAIM IS: there is no argument required to be unconvinced

RHETORICAL QUESTIONS ARE EMPLOYED TO ILLUSTRATE THIS POINT

in other words

if you don't feel compelled to explain why you are "not-a-stamp-collector"

then you already understand why it is nonsensical to goad someone into explaining why they call themself an ATHEIST (simply, NOT-A-THEIST)

#2
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,649
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@3RU7AL
there is no argument required to be unconvinced
The main problem with being an atheist is having all those religious people trying to put the burden on you to disprove the existence of an invisible undetectable God.

Its the logic twisted upside down, but easy to refute because its easier to live a life by "believing in existence of something when you have proof" than "believing in existence of something without proof". The latter means you have to believe in everything, so its not a good standard.
Topic's author
#3
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Best.Korea
The latter means you have to believe in everything, so its not a good standard.
we all cherry-pick our standards of evidence from topic to topic

atheists and theists

we can't hold theists to uniform standards of evidence

when atheists don't hold uniform standards of evidence


atheism is simply, NOT-A-THEIST


nothing more, nothing less

not an ontological or epistemological claim

in fact

ATHEISM makes no claim at all
Topic's author
#4
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
"I am (believer of non existence of God.) ==  I am not a (believer of existence of God.)" - - 

nope, merely unconvinced - - - 

it would be like saying "i am not a bigfoot fan club member" - - - 

it contains no explicit claim of bigfoot "non-existence"
#5
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,649
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@3RU7AL
ATHEISM makes no claim at all
Yes.

Rock is atheist, as rock doesnt believe in God. Yet no one can say that rock made a claim of any kind.
Topic's author
#6
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Best.Korea
Rock is atheist, as rock doesnt believe in God. Yet no one can say that rock made a claim of any kind.
well stated
#7
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
The strongest argument for atheism is no argument?

No argument is very convincing, how do I sign up, is there a secret handshake or something?

Can I do that burden of proof is one you and which God are you talking about philosophy stuff now?


Topic's author
#8
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Sidewalker
if you don't feel compelled to explain why you are "not-a-stamp-collector"

then you already understand why it is nonsensical to goad someone into explaining why they call themself an ATHEIST (simply, NOT-A-THEIST)
#9
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
if you don't feel compelled to explain why you are "not-a-stamp-collector"

then you already understand why it is nonsensical to goad someone into explaining why they call themself an ATHEIST (simply, NOT-A-THEIST)
I'm sorry, did you think I started this thread, afraid not, you started this thread, wouldn't it be you doing the goading.

"No argument" is weak, you didn't even talk about Unicorns and the Easter Bunny, c'mon, let's see some real philosophy LOL.
Topic's author
#10
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Sidewalker
"No argument" is weak, you didn't even talk about Unicorns and the Easter Bunny, c'mon, let's see some real philosophy LOL.
"no argument" is exactly what you would say if i asked you to explain why you don't collect stamps

the same applies for people who don't collect gods
#11
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
"No argument" is weak, you didn't even talk about Unicorns and the Easter Bunny, c'mon, let's see some real philosophy LOL.
"no argument" is exactly what you would say if i asked you to explain why you don't collect stamps

the same applies for people who don't collect gods
No, I think I would probably say something normal, like "I have no interest in collecting stamps.

And now that I'm an atheist, I'd add "the burden of proof is on you" and "which stamp collecting is it that I don't do"., and maybe something about unicorns collecting stamps....you know, all that philosophy stuff.




Topic's author
#12
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Sidewalker
and now that I'm an atheist, I'd add "the burden of proof is on you" to convince me to start collecting stamps in order to gain eternal bliss and avoid eternal torture
#13
baggins
baggins's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 92
1
3
9
baggins's avatar
baggins
1
3
9
And now that I’m a theist I’ll add “Isaac Newton believed in god, you think he was unreasonable?” and “a lot of tribes were spiritual, you think spiritually doesn’t exist?”. Oh and the best ones “Can you prove objective reality exists and baseball is scientific?”. All that philosophy stuff you know..
#14
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
And now that I’m a theist I’ll add “Isaac Newton believed in god, you think he was unreasonable?” and “a lot of tribes were spiritual, you think spiritually doesn’t exist?”. Oh and the best ones “Can you prove objective reality exists and baseball is scientific?”. All that philosophy stuff you know..
The burden of proof is on you.

Woo hoo, I won again!
#15
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
and now that I'm an atheist, I'd add "the burden of proof is on you" to convince me to start collecting stamps in order to gain eternal bliss and avoid eternal torture
What stamp collecting, there are a million different stamp collections, define exactly which stamp collecting you don't believe in?  Define eternal bliss and eternal torture, what kind of eternal bliss and eternal torture don't you believe in?

You can't expect me to prove a million different stamp collections, describe precisely what you don't believe in, if you can't do that you are irrational, illogical, and unscientific.

Neener neener, I win.
#16
baggins
baggins's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 92
1
3
9
baggins's avatar
baggins
1
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
There are no good arguments against God. Theres nothing that prohibits God to exist. Maybe we should just stop being atheists? Lets see, what do we do now? Should we look through all 3000 religions and see what they claim and scratch them off one by one? That sounds like its going to take a lot of time, and maybe we wont find him at all so maybe we should look at the biggest ones. Christianity, sadly doesn’t really grab me for countless reasons, sure lets say it can be true but I can’t really force myself to believe in it. Islam… I don’t really think an angel talked to a person in a cave just because a book say so, so sadly Im unconvinced, again. Lets see what else. What about deism. That could be helpful. A little bit of special pleading but…. Anyway… A god that just created everything, gave it a kick start and now its hands off the project. Hmm, it could give the needy people an explanation for whats the first cause etc but theres some problems with that too. How do we really know about that god and why should we really care? Does deism answers anything or just complicates things more? Couldn’t the universe be eternal? Can’t the universe exist out of necessity? We can just say the same things about the universe itself as for a deistic god. Why does it exist? Well because it has to. So adding one more thing in the picture and not answering anything .. doesn’t sound like a better hypothesis to me. If we dont have any good arguments for or against God what do we do? Maybe we should just remove the word “atheism” to make theists happy. We should be called “none”. 
Or do we put God in the same category as leprechauns? Do we need any good arguments for our disbelief in leprechauns? I guess so right? Is the fact the you’re simply not convinced in something good enough for you not to believe in it. For some people - no. You need to really really disprove leprechauns, maybe by inventing some kind of inter-dimensional machine and we go check in every possible dimension, take videos, come back here and show it to them. Im sure that won’t suffice too since leprechauns might have unknown powers and can just decide to hide somewhere else if they want to, kinda hard to argue against something that can do literally whatever it wants. The thing is, religious people really hate the fact that you dont need good arguments against god. You dont need to disprove anything that hasn’t been shown to exist in the first place. They might cry and sob that this is a burden of proof game, they might start getting emotional and call you immature loser or not sophisticated enough to understand the concept of god, but at the end of the day I actually understand their frustration. They feel like they always have to do the work, and they always have to defend what they believe. I get it. So sure I can give it to them, theres no good arguments against God. Now what do I do? Aren’t I forced to pick a theism? Well, that didn’t work very well. I guess now we are stuck with not having any evidence for this extraordinary idea that nobody can show is even possible. So at this point its all up to the individual and how willing they are to believe something unprovable and unfalsifiable. Some people decide not to believe things without good reasons, and some people decide otherwise. But be careful and don’t you ever question the reasons of the people who decided otherwise. They do not want to talk about it and they really hate that you can just be unconvinced by lack of evidence. Somehow they don’t understand that atheism just means “i am not convinced that gods exist” and you dont need arguments against gods because atheism doesn’t say “its impossible for gods to exist”. You only need arguments for why you are not convinced. Sadly thats not enough for some of them and they will try to turn the conversation into everything else, asking you irrelevant questions like “CaN yOu ProVe obJeCtIVe ReALIty eXisTs???!!!”
Atheism is not holding any positive beliefs about gods. Atheist is someone who withholds beliefs because they are unconvinced. Atheists are willing to be convinced which is the reason why they asks the opposite side to present their case. Maybe if the other side had a case and didn’t get so defensive they would’ve get it. And whenever they realize they don’t have a reasonable argument for God they will realize thats what makes you an atheist.They think you need to have an argument that disproves God be an atheist. You just need to not be convinced in the existing arguments for God. Sorry for the generalizations btw, there are some theists who are  genuine people willing to discuss their true beliefs and the reasons behind them. 

#17
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
And now that I’m a theist I’ll add “Isaac Newton believed in god, you think he was unreasonable?” and “a lot of tribes were spiritual, you think spiritually doesn’t exist?”. Oh and the best ones “Can you prove objective reality exists and baseball is scientific?”. All that philosophy stuff you know..
Being an atheist and all, I'm smarter, more rational, more logical, more reasonable and more scientific than you and Isaac Newton combined. 

If you can't prove that God exists to me, then you aren't allowed to be a Theist.

God can't be proven; you should worship me instead; I am the superior being, all theists are inferior to me.


Topic's author
#18
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@baggins
And now that I’m a theist I’ll add “Isaac Newton believed in god, you think he was unreasonable?” and “a lot of tribes were spiritual, you think spiritually doesn’t exist?”. Oh and the best ones “Can you prove objective reality exists and baseball is scientific?”. All that philosophy stuff you know..
a veritable smorgasbord of red herrings

to derail the central contention
Topic's author
#19
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Sidewalker
define exactly which stamp collecting you don't believe in?
very specifically, THEISTIC stamp collecting
Topic's author
#20
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@baggins
What about deism. That could be helpful. A little bit of special pleading but…. Anyway… A god that just created everything, gave it a kick start and now its hands off the project. Hmm, it could give the needy people an explanation for whats the first cause etc but theres some problems with that too. How do we really know about that god and why should we really care? Does deism answers anything or just complicates things more? Couldn’t the universe be eternal? Can’t the universe exist out of necessity? We can just say the same things about the universe itself as for a deistic god. Why does it exist? Well because it has to. So adding one more thing in the picture and not answering anything .. doesn’t sound like a better hypothesis to me. If we dont have any good arguments for or against God what do we do?
DEISM is functionally indistinguishable from ATHEISM

if we don't have any sound arguments for or against bigfoot what do we do ?

NOUMENON = UNKNOWABLE DEISTIC CREATOR = MAGNUM MYSTERIUM
Topic's author
#21
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Sidewalker
If you can't prove that God exists to me, then you aren't allowed to be a Theist.

nobody is suggesting you can't be a THEIST

we're merely suggesting that you have no sound reason for your FAITH

and as far as i understand

that's exactly why THEISTS use the word FAITH in the first place
Topic's author
#22
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@baggins
You need to really really disprove leprechauns, maybe by inventing some kind of inter-dimensional machine and we go check in every possible dimension, take videos, come back here and show it to them. Im sure that won’t suffice too since leprechauns might have unknown powers and can just decide to hide somewhere else if they want to, kinda hard to argue against something that can do literally whatever it wants.
bingo
#23
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
If you can't prove that God exists to me, then you aren't allowed to be a Theist.

nobody is suggesting you can't be a THEIST

we're merely suggesting that you have no sound reason for your FAITH

and as far as i understand

that's exactly why THEISTS use the word FAITH in the first place
Then you agree with me that the Burden of Proof game is bullshit?






#24
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@baggins
“CaN yOu ProVe obJeCtIVe ReALIty eXisTs???!!!”

Hit your finger with a steel hammer once, twice, three times more, and see if you remain unconvinced of a visual of pixels on your screen and your above statement about reality { physical }


Atheism is not holding any positive beliefs about gods. Atheist is someone who withholds beliefs because they are unconvinced.

Duh yeah, that is 3RU's focal point of the topic. Glad to see you get it and agree.

God is word and exists as such. Ask 100 differrent people how it is defined and get may at least 50 differrent Bibilical-like answers, with perhaps, that, they all agree that this word God created the finite, occupied space Universe and this of course means the word God created all of the Meta-space cosmic principles and physical laws that complement the finite, occupied space Universe.

Another way of stating the latter above is to replace those words with the word God created ' everything ' and is everything, as my Seagrams 7 drinking mother would explain to me. 

God > Everything > God i.e. God is everything  including God and God created itself  --its own being---.  Oops is God a being?  Now we get back into asking 100 differrent people to define what a being is? Does a being occupy a space? Is a being 3 spatial dimensions plus dynamics of time flow associations?





#25
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,611
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

Angel:     God, they are taking about you again on DA. Why don't you say something to them?

God:         What, and tell them FLRW is really a God and he just friended one of the smartest people on the site?
                   Get me more pictures of Melania off Trump's iPhone.     
Topic's author
#26
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Sidewalker
Then you agree with me that the Burden of Proof game is bullshit?

the burden of proof is always on the party making the positive claim

it is not a "game" - - it's simply how conversations work

if i'm trying to convince you of something - - - i need to support my claim to meet YOUR standard of evidence

if you're trying to convince me of something - - - you need to support your claim to meet MY standard of evidence

this should be obvious




now, on this particular topic - - the atheist makes no positive claim - - they are merely UNconvinced - - which is exactly like every other conversation - - one party is UNconvinced and the other party TRIES TO CONVINCE THEM - - it's not rocket-surgery



the THEIST is making a positive claim - - "do this and that and or believe this and that or there will be shocking consequences" - - it actually sounds a lot like a threat

naturally, the UNconvinced are going to ask, "how do you know this" and when the answer boils down to "FAITH" - - it seems obvious they would remain UNconvinced
#27
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
Then you agree with me that the Burden of Proof game is bullshit?

the burden of proof is always on the party making the positive claim

it is not a "game" - - it's simply how conversations work

if i'm trying to convince you of something - - - i need to support my claim to meet YOUR standard of evidence

if you're trying to convince me of something - - - you need to support your claim to meet MY standard of evidence

this should be obvious

now, on this particular topic - - the atheist makes no positive claim - - they are merely UNconvinced - - which is exactly like every other conversation - - one party is UNconvinced and the other party TRIES TO CONVINCE THEM - - it's not rocket-surgery
the THEIST is making a positive claim - - "do this and that and or believe this and that or there will be shocking consequences" - - it actually sounds a lot like a threat

naturally, the UNconvinced are going to ask, "how do you know this" and when the answer boils down to "FAITH" - - it seems obvious they would remain UNconvinced
LOL, you don't have to tell me how the BOP game is played, I know how the BOP game is played, and I also know it is puerile nonsense.  This Pavlovian statement is merely an article of faith of your religion, it is illogical and irrational.   

Pay attention, I'm going to try to dumb it down far enough that you might understand this time.

First, you are the one making the BOP claim, so the Burden of Proof is on you, you must prove the above assertion.  (The Pavlovian response is nuh uh, the BOP is on you)

Second, it is the embodiment of the logical fallacy of an argument from ignorance, always followed up with "I win". 

Third, what you are talking about is metaphysics, specifically ontology (Google it), the study of existence, and anyone with even a cursory understanding of philosophy (maybe Google philosophy too) knows that there is no such thing as an ontological proof.  That's why, when I challenge you guys to prove your own metaphysical presuppositions, rather than respond, you guys cry like a little bitch.  

Instead of cry like a little bitch this time, tell me what you do believe about existence, accept the burden of proof, and prove it.  To contend that you don't believe in the existence of God implies you do believe in the existence of an external reality, the burden of proof is on you, prove the existence of an external reality.




#28
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Sidewalker
tell me what you do believe about existence,

Three Primary Kinds of Existence aka Cosmic Trinary Set/Outline ----old news none have added too or detracted from with any logical, common sense critical thinking---:

1} eternally existent Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego, i.e concepts of God, Space, Time, Footballs, This That and other.  Meta-space concepts are not an occupied or non-occupied space.  Meta-space concepts have no charge, no spatial spin, no mass, no weight, no taste, no color etc.

2} eternally existent, macro-inifnite and truly non-ccupied space that, embraces/surrounds the following,

3} eternally exist, finite, occupied space Universe with three primary subsets:

....3a} eternally existent, occupied space Gravity { contractive/mass-attractive } ---non-quantized ergo classification as Meta-physical,

....3b} eternally {?} existent, occupied space physical reality { observed { quantized } time } as Fermionic matter and Bosonic Forces with third hybrid catagory of these two, ---note: if Dark Matter exists, it is in this catagory----

......3c} eternally existent, occupied space Dark Energy { expansive }

prove the existence of an external reality.

1st law of thermodynamics --naught is created nor lost only transformed---- and that transposes as finite integrity of occupied space Universe.

1} no proof of an infinite occupied space Universe, --as such would violate structural and systemic integrity---  and please use logical, common sense critical thinking here to arrive at above conclusion


#29
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@ebuc
prove the existence of an external reality.

1st law of thermodynamics --naught is created nor lost only transformed---- and that transposes as finite integrity of occupied space Universe.

1} no proof of an infinite occupied space Universe, --as such would violate structural and systemic integrity---  and please use logical, common sense critical thinking here to arrive at above conclusion

Logical, common sense critical thinking tells me your science is well over a hundred years old. 

Emmy Noether formalized the mathematics of the conservation law, and whether you know it or not, the reason you thought energy is conserved is because of Noether’s time-translation invariance, which mathematically tells us that energy is conserved when the background on which particles and forces evolve, as well as the dynamical rules governing their motions, are fixed, not changing with time.  

But in general relativity that’s simply no longer true. Einstein tells us that space and time are dynamical, and in particular that they can evolve with time. When the space through which particles move is changing, the total energy of those particles is not conserved.

For instance, one example is redshift, the reason we know the Universe is expanding is because of the observation that light is redshifted in all directions, and because a photon's energy is inversely proportional to its wavelength, the light has therefore shifted to a lower energy state, and consequently, the total amount of energy is not conserved.
#30
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,989
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Sidewalker
This is correct, as these laws apply to an observable closed system. As we know, the universe is expanding, so as we approach the limits of the universe, closed system laws will not apply.