Favourite Atheist arguments

[paarsurrey]

Favourite Atheist arguments

Theist: There's an invisible God out there.

Atheist: Stop feeding it and it will go away.

It is the Pauline-Christianity who are the breeding ground of the Atheism and the like , I understand.
Right?
_________________
The six countries in the world with the most 'convinced atheists'
The six countries in the world that believe in God the least

 

[paarsurrey]

The state or acknowledgement of existence without deities or without belief in deities. Alternatively, it directly refers to those who actively or passively disbelieve in deities.

Origin: Greece, 1565–75; áthe(os): godless
​

Source​

Then always just write athe without (os) and without ism. Right?
Even then all points of my post #351 will apply here also.
Regards

 

[McBell]

Then always just write athe without (os) and without ism. Right?
Even then all points of my post #351 will apply here also.
Regards

Post #351 is in the same position as god...
Severe lack of convincing evidence.

 

[rational experiences]

As a thinker i learnt human theisms are want motivated.

Want causes subjective reasoning.

Experience is different which caused thinking advice.

Not motivated by want as I never wanted any sickness suffering or phenomena. Facts studied known as phenomena and studied in America.

American archaeological history event of the origins science. By themes human memory and evidence studied.

Stated by just living humans by males.words. meanings. Words. Description words then machine caused AI effect. Encodings.

What previously never existed?

A human designed controlled machine with human claim I am the consciousness for machine.

Subject God in the sciences is the subject.

Human knows human is alive. Standing on stone mass where he abstracts mass from to build science.

His science theme God. A man image that formed by abstract causes images whilst his body on ground was life sacrificed. As cross immaculate burning spirit light fell out due to his machine.

The AI effect. Phenomena.

Reason first noticed phenomena wood..garden nature evicted burning of bush.

Wood body nature sacrificed.
As was microbes.
As was insects.
As was animals.
As was female human.

Bible stated.

Now you have to ask theist writer manifested change witnessed. Was it good by your standards reason to activate time shifting reaction?

Yes.

The heavens began to image demonstrate life bodies were shifting their forms. Cloud imaged his proof.

Clouds one of mass history back to volcanic gas in space release.

Meanwhile anyone who ever heard life origins sacrificed as human voiced screaming telling begging for mercy would disagree with brother satanist scientist. About God and man image in clouds heavens. As being God.

God history gas in mass burning before sealed. God.

As it is heard the records of life burning to death. Why we believed. By and because of multi human experience in phenomena. Change. Unnatural change.

Not natural to take mass past held pressure and water cooled sealing.

Stephen Haw King advice.

 

[Valjean]

This is something the enclyideas discuss as the original meaning how is that a straw man?

It's a straw man because your commentary applies to definition A, while others are working from definition B. We're discussing different things with the same name. We could talk past each other for ten thousand posts, and resolve nothing.

 

[Valjean]

Would you agree to:
“The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without evidence."

Not sure what to make of this. It's ambiguous.
What constitutes a sin? -- and what's "against the mind? it something that harms "the mind," like confusion or brain damage, or is it something that causes harmful actions, like sociopathy, jingoism or homicidal mania?

"Science is simply common sense at its best - that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.” ?

Simple science may be common sense, but common sense was the go-to system for thousands of years, with little agreement and nothing resolved.
It was only when science abandoned common sense for an empirical approach that human knowledge and technology skyrocketed.
Theoretical physics and its related technologies are decidedly anti-intuitive -- uncommonly senseless.

 

[Valjean]

I have to disagree with this.

To "lack belief" in something is to have something to lack belief in.

That doesn't follow. You can't lack believe in something unless it actually exists?
If a kid believes in the tooth færie, does she then exist?

 

[Valjean]

The state or acknowledgement of existence without deities or without belief in deities. Alternatively, it directly refers to those who actively or passively disbelieve in deities.

Origin: Greece, 1565–75; áthe(os): godless
​

Source​

And they had always been an (unreasonable) minority perspective with no methodology.

Regards

No, it's those that believe without evidence who are unreasonable. Lack of belief in something entirely unevidenced is perfectly reasonable.
Methodology? Why would this issue entail a method?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The same as everyone else's. Lack of belief in unevidenced, supernatural entities, of any description.

I don't use that definition..

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, it's those that believe without evidence who are unreasonable. Lack of belief in something entirely unevidenced is perfectly reasonable.
Methodology? Why would this issue entail a method?

What is your evidence, that they are unreasonable?

 

[Valjean]

Magenta ^.
That is another dogma of Atheism among many, they have been wrongly indoctrinated into, I understand.
if Atheism had been the default ism then they needed not to peg the unnatural word "Atheism" with the natural word "Theism", if figure.

Regards

What?! I thought you were beginning to understand atheism. Apparently not.

There is no dogma in atheism; no beliefs at all. Indoctrinated? What's atheism's doctrine?
Atheism is lack of belief. Why is that so hard to grasp?
We're born unindoctrinated, ie: atheist. We're indoctrinated into religious dogma later.

Pegging the natura and unnatural worlds? What does that mean? Theism and atheism are not worlds, nore are they nature. They're beliefs, and are either reasonable or unreasonable.
paarsurrey said: ↑
I had to take on them, don't they bully all the time the believers on such petty points as if they are champions, please? Right?

Wrong. We have no doctrine to bully anyone with. All we do is respond -- often to theistic bullying.
Apparently this response is incisive enough that theists feel bullied by it.

 

[Valjean]

I don't use that definition..

Well, there's a problem.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, there's a problem.

Please give evidence for that.

 

[tarasan]

It's a straw man because your commentary applies to definition A, while others are working from definition B. We're discussing different things with the same name. We could talk past each other for ten thousand posts, and resolve nothing.

Mate I was describing two different definitions of athiesm one is a positive claim while the other is the lack of belief in God if u only agree with one that's fine. I got these definitions from an academic encyclopedia. I understand that there are definitions of athiesm but these are the most common two.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's a straw man because your commentary applies to definition A, while others are working from definition B. We're discussing different things with the same name. We could talk past each other for ten thousand posts, and resolve nothing.

That is a problem. What do we do about that?

 

[Valjean]

Sure, but generally speaking atheists have no problem saying that God could have created the universe if he existed.

When have we said that? Inasmuch as we don't believe in God, when would the question have come up? How would we be able to comment on the abilities of an imaginary being?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

When have we said that? Inasmuch as we don't believe in God, when would the question have come up? How would we be able to comment on the abilities of an imaginary being?

OMG. You are a "we"! You are all philosophers and all atheists and I am not me, because you are me as a we.

 

[Valjean]

It is the Pauline-Christianity who are the breeding ground of the Atheism and the like , I understand.
Right?

Huh? What does Paul or Christianity have to do with not believing in a deity?

There were atheists before Paul or Christianity existed.
There are atheists among people who know nothing of Paul or Christianity.
A week old baby is atheist; did he become atheist because of Paul or Christianity?

Then always just write athe without (os) and without ism. Right?
Even then all points of my post #351 will apply here also.
Regards

The "os" is dropped in this word; it's a sort of liaison. Compare to theo-logy or
the-ism. The linguistic reasons aren't important.

You keep bringing this up. You see something significant in it. What?

How many times must we explain the linguistics? Three bound morphemes:
"A- or an-" meaning without or not, as in a-symmetry, a-chromatic, a-tonal, an-ærobic or an-archy.
"The(o-)" Gk: Θεός, meaning God.
-ism: A suffix indicating a practice, state or condition.

 

[PureX]

What do you understand by revelations?
I am referring to the people claiming to be prophets that were able get a message from God. As long as the prophet is alive it is not a subjective matter since there is a living central authority over how to interpret the message.

But what we have is purported prophets contradicting each other and no way to ascertain who is speaking the truth.

You really need to let go of this nonsense. It's a nowhere argument based on the fact that some humans think they hear the gods talking to them. And then other humans finding their own meaning meaning in the purported "revelations". It's a jacked up game of 'telephone'.

 

[Valjean]

Please give evidence for that.

It's a problem when we're talking about two different things with the same name, thinking we're talking about the same thing.
The definition I use is the definition generally accepted by modern university philosophy and theology departments, and by atheists themselves.

That is a problem. What do we do about that?

Decide what we're actually talking about at the outset.

OMG. You are a "we"! You are all philosophers and all atheists and I am not me, because you are me as a we.

LOL! -- I say "we" because there are several of us in here saying the same thing, and I didn't want to selfishly arrogate all the credit myself.