Favourite Atheist arguments

[ChristineM]

Ok as a hyper nerd I take a great deal of offence to that. Just like a take offence to zombie Jesus. People clearly haven't played enough dnd if they do not know the difference between resurrection , reanimation and reincarnation. Conclusion: people need to play more dnd

Sorry if truth hurts, them dnd unicorns are just as fake as the movie unicorns... Tiz all in the mind you see, all in the mind, just like any self respecting diety?


What god presides of dnd?

 

[tarasan]

No, just laughing at undeserved arrogance. I know some of what Dawkins said. I would be interested in knowing what you took offense at, though I can guess. Make sure that you do not quote him out of context.

I actually didn't take offense it's just I was a young man who didn't know alot about his faith back then and Dawkins rhetoric exposed alot of what I didn't know about my faith so I took steps to change that.

And how am I being arrogant?

 

[tarasan]

Sorry if truth hurts, them dnd unicorns are just as fake as the movie unicorns... Tiz all in the mind you see, all in the mind, just like any self respecting diety?


What god presides of dnd?

I have never said that unicorns are real where is this coming from? I'm just saying that the idea of a unicorn is very specific

It's actually a massive pantheon it's super cool.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I suppose I would be the same as u guys I don't feel there is very much acceptable evidence for athiesm

Atheism isn't a claim, so it doesn't require evidence.

Claims require evidence. Theism is the claim.
Atheism is a position on the claim of theism.

Theism has the burden of proof.

Atheism is the recognition that theism fails to meet its burden of proof.

and I find the arguments for a creator (and specifically a Christian creator) compelling

I don't. I find them textbook examples of logical fallacies.

 

[ChristineM]

I have never said that unicorns are real where is this coming from? I'm just saying that the idea of a unicorn is very specific

It's actually a massive pantheon it's super cool.

You describe it as a horse with a horn, a fairly specific description for something not real.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It didn't look things have certain attributes that make up a thing. It's how we can know that a blank of wood is a plank of wood or a door is a door etc. It's why people would look at you funny if u started calling a hedgehog a cat or a bunny the empire states building.

And it's not that things done have attributes that overlap for example two humans have alot that do but we have enough different that on some level people recognise that we are distinct from one another.

So with the idea of unicorns god u and me. Having certain qualities stripped a way, the conversation is no longer about us.

For example say if u said hey tarasan has two wings, scales and can breath fire. Most people would say that isn't tarasan, that's a dragon.

This is the issue with the unicorn bit of you take away the attributes that make a unicorn a unicorn then it becomes something else

The same can be said about a god. A god simply has the attributes that man wants him to have. Any attributes that man can give to his god can be given to the Invisible Pink Unicorn. It is an example of how concepts that are not supported by evidence are not justified.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yeah I remember whenever negative athiests pulled that old chestnut. Inherently it makes no sense but I will ignore that to progress the conversation.

Let's assume it's a monotheistic perfect being god along the lines of a Protestant Christian theology

This makes no sense to me at all.
I also don't have a clue what the word "negative" is doing there nore what it means.

It's very simple... if you are asking for people to come up with evidence against an entity - you first are going to have to define said entity rather specifically. You need to have a falsifiable definition.

We can't provide you with evidence against a vague unfalsifiable concept.

If you want evidence "against" a god, you're going to have to define that god first in such a way that it even CAN have evidence in support of it OR against it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I actually didn't take offense it's just I was a young man who didn't know alot about his faith back then and Dawkins rhetoric exposed alot of what I didn't know about my faith so I took steps to change that.

And how am I being arrogant?

You have been arrogant here. And you never been specific in the supposed rhetoric of Dawkins. I am glad that your spelling has improved. Now one more. This is an alot:

You might have meant to use two separate words, each of them is very easy to spell. Examples like this can help one to understand English a lot better.

 

[tarasan]

You describe it as a horse with a horn, a fairly specific description for something not real.

That's because things that aren't real can have fairly specific descriptions.i mean you think my god is a load of bull right? But for the most part he has a very robust description of what he is. I mean we know dragons are not real but we know they are lizards that fly and breath fire and stand on four legs. And we know that while also being not real wyrns are flying lizards that stand on two legs and don't breath fire. (Your the one that made this a nerdy thing... I'm sorry)

In language words have specific meanings and to deviate from those meanings drastically means u are no longer talking about that thing

 

[tarasan]

This makes no sense to me at all.
I also don't have a clue what the word "negative" is doing there nore what it means.

It's very simple... if you are asking for people to come up with evidence against an entity - you first are going to have to define said entity rather specifically. You need to have a falsifiable definition.

We can't provide you with evidence against a vague unfalsifiable concept.

If you want evidence "against" a god, you're going to have to define that god first in such a way that it even CAN have evidence in support of it OR against it.

You don't know what a negative athiest is? Am I that old!?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No that's agnosticism.

(A)gnosticism pertains to knowledge.
(a)theism pertains to beliefs (theistic beliefs specifically).

They are not mutually exclusive positions.

I'm an agnostic atheist.
I don't think I've ever met a gnostic atheist.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God. This is what an agnostic is. Originally there were three camps in the discussion thiesm, agnosticism and athiesm. One said there was a god the other said there wasn't and the third said the don't know or I can't know.

Then about fifty years ago athiest started pushing this lack of belief to try and push the burden of proof onto the thiests. But they have never claimed they are agnostic in fact that is why they stated lack of belief and not just not knowing.

Mate I think it's u that needs to get the definitions sorted out :S

Here's a helpful graph for you:

 

[tarasan]

You have been arrogant here. And you never been specific in the supposed rhetoric of Dawkins. I am glad that your spelling has improved. Now one more. This is an alot:

You might have meant to use two separate words, each of them is very easy to spell. Examples like this can help one to understand English a lot better.

Mate I have not been arrogant. And I never intended to be specific I was reflecting on what my younger self had to deal with. And what does this alot have to do with anything I dont understand.

 

[tarasan]

(A)gnosticism pertains to knowledge.
(a)theism pertains to beliefs (theistic beliefs specifically).

They are not mutually exclusive positions.

I'm an agnostic atheist.
I don't think I've ever met a gnostic atheist.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No because God is timeless spaceless, immaterial

Something that is timeless, spaceless and immaterial is indistinguishable from something that does not exist.




edit: fixed broken quote

 

[tarasan]

(A)gnosticism pertains to knowledge.
(a)theism pertains to beliefs (theistic beliefs specifically).

They are not mutually exclusive positions.

I'm an agnostic atheist.
I don't think I've ever met a gnostic atheist.

Mate if your claiming a belief your claiming knowledge that graph is to show that there can be a spectrum in that knowledge base not that they are both separate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Mate I have not been arrogant. And I never intended to be specific I was reflecting on what my younger self had to deal with. And what does this alot have to do with anything I dont understand.

You keep talking about that "alot" it is in quite a few of your posts. Or should I say afew?

And yes, you have been arrogant. But then the arrogant cannot see that. I am arrogant too at times, but I usually use it as a weapon against the arrogant. They tend to resent that for some odd reason.

 

[tarasan]

What makes you think that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Mate if your claiming a belief your claiming knowledge that graph is to show that there can be a spectrum in that knowledge base not that they are both separate.

I am sorry, but I cannot make heads nor tails out of this post.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What makes you think that?

You tried to define atheism to atheists. That is as arrogant as a Muslim defining what Christianity is to you.