Favourite Atheist arguments

[tarasan]

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.

Ok I understand it was a misspelling but it's common enough and in context it was obvious what I mean. A lot. And I haven't been I have been trying to have a conversation. I understand that due to the limited formate of text u might of interpreted that way. But I have just wanted to have a conversation.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

I just told you that I don't know what you mean by it.

 

[tarasan]

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

Well that depends is the Muslim right? I mean what are we doing here. I have been challenged on biblical inherency. My logical conclusion and yes even my definitions of theological concepts from athiests and even other believers on this very site . Are they arrogant for doing so? Were u arrogant for saying the Bible had contradictions? No you weren't and it's not arrogant to point out when u think someone has made a mistake. I mean I remeber being a kid and thinking I knew omnipotence was. If someone had corrected me would that of been arrogant of them for Daring to tell a Christian about his religion? No.

 

[ChristineM]

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

As far as I understand gods have little coherent description, in fact just about every believers idea of their god is different.

Which is why i brought mythical creatures into the discussion, and provided links (that appear to have offended you) that these myths can have many descriptions, more recently based on movie depictions. If you look as older depictions you will see modified forms of lions, horses, rhinoserus, lizard, goats and bulls.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well that depends is the Muslim right? I mean what are we doing here. I have been challenged on biblical inherency. My logical conclusion and yes even my definitions of theological concepts from athiests and even other believers on this very site . Are they arrogant for doing so? Were u arrogant for saying the Bible had contradictions? No you weren't and it's not arrogant to point out when u think someone has made a mistake. I mean I remeber being a kid and thinking I knew omnipotence was. If someone had corrected me would that of been arrogant of them for Daring to tell a Christian about his religion? No.

No, I was not arrogant for claiming that the Bible has contradictions because I can justify that claim. It is arrogance when one makes claims that they cannot justify. One thing to remember is that in the wester world at least, most atheists used to be Christians. It is quite often the case that through understanding the Bible better that they became atheists.

 

[tarasan]

I just told you that I don't know what you mean by it.

I think that's an age gap friend. Intially at the beginning there were three view thiesm (there is a god) athiesm (there is no god) and agnostiscm( I dont know/you can't know). The around fifty sixty years ago athiesm started to try and push that the lacked belief in a god and there was alot of debate and discussion over it. And it was still going on when I was a young teen early adult. And athiesm at the time had two camps. Positive athiesm help to the traditional view that it claimed there was no god, and negative athiesm that claimed to lack belief. I'm 32 I have a feeling there is an age gap?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Mate if your claiming a belief your claiming knowledge

My atheism is not a claim of belief. It is the exact opposite.
NOT believing a claim. The claim of theism, specifically.

that graph is to show that there can be a spectrum in that knowledge base not that they are both separate.

The graph shows that (a)gnosticism is a qualifier of (a)theism. Not an "alternative position".

So you are not an agnostic OR an atheist.
You can be a gnostic atheist or an agnostic atheist.

 

[tarasan]

As far as I understand gods have little coherent description, in fact just about every believers idea of their god is different.

Which is why i brought mythical creatures into the discussion, and provided links (that appear to have offended you) that these myths can have many descriptions, more recently based on movie depictions. If you look as older depictions you will see modified forms of lions, horses, rhinoserus, lizard, goats and bulls.

Actually all those movie adaptations tend to follow the same basic discription but yes.. there are others that don't but I'm sure how Hollywood ignorance helps u here.

I would read up on perfect being theology Christian and in fact most religions have a very robust view on their gods, their purpose, limitations etc. They dont deviate from them and will fight tooth and nail to defend them.

I wasn't offended mostly peeved that isn't offended right?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think that's an age gap friend. Intially at the beginning there were three view thiesm (there is a god) athiesm (there is no god) and agnostiscm( I dont know/you can't know). The around fifty sixty years ago athiesm started to try and push that the lacked belief in a god and there was alot of debate and discussion over it. And it was still going on when I was a young teen early adult. And athiesm at the time had two camps. Positive athiesm help to the traditional view that it claimed there was no god, and negative athiesm that claimed to lack belief. I'm 32 I have a feeling there is an age gap?

I'm 40.

What you are talking about is weak and strong atheism. Or agnostic and gnostic atheism.

None of this is of any interest as semantics don't define my actual position.
I've already told you what my position is.

You can either accept that or continue to waste time arguing semantics.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think that's an age gap friend. Intially at the beginning there were three view thiesm (there is a god) athiesm (there is no god) and agnostiscm( I dont know/you can't know). The around fifty sixty years ago athiesm started to try and push that the lacked belief in a god and there was alot of debate and discussion over it. And it was still going on when I was a young teen early adult. And athiesm at the time had two camps. Positive athiesm help to the traditional view that it claimed there was no god, and negative athiesm that claimed to lack belief. I'm 32 I have a feeling there is an age gap?

That is not true. If you look at definitions that are older than that you will see atheism described as a lack of belief in god or gods. I think that the push came from Christians that were afraid of communism. The change did not come from atheists themselves. Now I am willing to admit that my hypothesis is only supported by the apparent change in the definition of "atheist". But it seems to make sense. Communism and anything associated with it was made to appear to be the "enemy" during the cold war. That is still seen today when social reform measures are often called "socialism" rather than dealing with the changes on their merits. Meanwhile they ignore that the police, the fire departments, road building, schools, and even the military are "socialist" by that definition.

 

[tarasan]

No, I was not arrogant for claiming that the Bible has contradictions because I can justify that claim. It is arrogance when one makes claims that they cannot justify. One thing to remember is that in the wester world at least, most atheists used to be Christians. It is quite often the case that through understanding the Bible better that they became atheists.

I did justify it I told you what lacking a belief in something ment and then you tried to take the agnostic camp of not knowing. You either know something or you don't know something. To lack something means to not have it to begin with. But by merely having this conversation with me your having an opinion whether it be to not know or to know. That isn't arrogance to dispute what your saying.

 

[tarasan]

I'm 40.

What you are talking about is weak and strong atheism. Or agnostic and gnostic atheism.

None of this is of any interest as semantics don't define my actual position.
I've already told you what my position is.

You can either accept that or continue to waste time arguing semantics.

This is not semantics

Mate agnosticism literally means to not know about god. It's a very well defined term. The only reason people blurred the lines was because of the certainty factor I mean I quoted the dictionary definition of agnosticism above if you wanna look at it

 

[tarasan]

That is not true. If you look at definitions that are older than that you will see atheism described as a lack of belief in god or gods. I think that the push came from Christians that were afraid of communism. The change did not come from atheists themselves. Now I am willing to admit that my hypothesis is only supported by the apparent change in the definition of "atheist". But it seems to make sense. Communism and anything associated with it was made to appear to be the "enemy" during the cold war. That is still seen today when social reform measures are often called "socialism" rather than dealing with the changes on their merits. Meanwhile they ignore that the police, the fire departments, road building, schools, and even the military are "socialist" by that definition.

Mate this has nothing to do with communism athiest ascribed themselves that way until about 59-60 years ago

 

[ChristineM]

Actually all those movie adaptations tend to follow the same basic discription but yes.. there are others that don't but I'm sure how Hollywood ignorance helps u here.

I would read up on perfect being theology Christian and in fact most religions have a very robust view on their gods, their purpose, limitations etc. They dont deviate from them and will fight tooth and nail to defend them.

I wasn't offended mostly peeved that isn't offended right?

I have never seen any personal definition of god that agrees with another. Sure the general aspects, those in the books you say are not important to the god concept are similar but the nitty gritty personality, living arrangements, even some abilities differ

Which to me is more evidence that gods are of the mind.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I did justify it I told you what lacking a belief in something ment and then you tried to take the agnostic camp of not knowing. You either know something or you don't know something. To lack something means to not have it to begin with. But by merely having this conversation with me your having an opinion whether it be to not know or to know. That isn't arrogance to dispute what your saying.

And there you go again. For the most part the "agnostic camp" is atheist. You are now a Muslim telling a Christian why he is not a Christian because he does not match the Muslim's strawman of Christianity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Mate this has nothing to do with communism athiest ascribed themselves that way until about 59-60 years ago

How do you know? You are almost certainly too young to have experienced the Cold War.

Your inability to understand does not mean that atheists changed the definition.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This is not semantics

It is.

I don't believe in any gods.
That makes me an atheist.

I don't know if there are any gods.
That makes me an agnostic.

I'm an agnostic atheist.

You can either accept that and have a fruitful discussion or continue to waste time and webspace.

Mate agnosticism literally means to not know about god. It's a very well defined term.

Yes. And it says absolutely nothing about belief.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Mate this has nothing to do with communism athiest ascribed themselves that way until about 59-60 years ago

I don't know about that and it doesn't matter. Because we are having this conversation today, not 60 years ago.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Mate this has nothing to do with communism athiest ascribed themselves that way until about 59-60 years ago

You are somewhat right. The attacks against atheists goes back long before then. But you are wrong when you try to claim that atheists recently tried to redefine the term. It appears that they always had the current definition and it is the writers of dictionaries that were wrong. One can go back 120 years and find the same definition as we have now proposed by atheists:

A History of the Word “Atheism” and the Politics of Dictionaries

Once again, the members of a group are usually the best at defining their group. You would not allow Muslims to define what Christianity is, especially if it left you out.

I tell you what, let's compromise. I man not really an atheist and you are not really a Christian. Does that sound reasonable to you? I hope not, but it should make your error clear.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't know about that and it doesn't matter. Because we are having this conversation today, not 60 years ago.

He would have been wrong 60 years ago since atheists back then described themselves as they do now. And that was the case even further back. What began to happen 60 years ago was that dictionaries may have quit trying to tell atheists what they are. But Christians defining what is and what is not atheism is as bad as Muslims defining what is and what is not Christianity.