㊙️ THE STRONGEST ARGUMENT FOR ATHEISM (TSAFA)

[LOGICZOMBIE]

㊙️ 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)





CRITIQUE = RESPECT

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

https://www.intpforum.com/threads/㊙%EF%B8%8F-the-strongest-argument-for-atheism-tsafa.29874/

㊙️ THE STRONGEST ARGUMENT FOR ATHEISM (TSAFA)

CRITIQUE = RESPECT

logiczombie.substack.com

㊙️ THE STRONGEST ARGUMENT FOR ATHEISM (TSAFA)

The forum discussion on the subject of: ㊙️ THE STRONGEST ARGUMENT FOR ATHEISM (TSAFA)

www.debateart.com

㊙️ THE STRONGEST ARGUMENT FOR ATHEISM (TSAFA) — Blurt

㊙️ 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 … by logiczombie

blurt.blog

 

[Black Rose]

Presumably, does this mean I do not need to explain why I am a theist?

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

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

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Presumably, does this mean I do not need to explain why I am a theist?

explain only if you personally feel compelled to explain


you have a fundamental right to self-identification

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

thanks for the critique - -

perhaps i should make it more clear - -

the claim is "i am an ATHEIST" in the same way "i am not convinced of the existence of bigfootspacealienslochnessmonster" - -

"i am unconvinced of THEISM" - -

in this sense, it is distinct from the claim "i'm not sure, maybe bigfootspacealienslochnessmonster is real" - - -

that's why the essential definition of ATHEIST is simply NOT-A-THEIST - -

so, i guess the essential claim of ATHEIST is "i do not self-identify as a THEIST"

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

"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"

 

[Black Rose]

Can we say my belief in theism needs qualifiers?

My self-identification as a theist comes from my experience of God.

I saw the divine light after the moral choice I made to forgive someone.

(This was literally light and had a personality to it)

In my view divinity is that which cannot be explained by the mind body problem.

In other words, divinity = the force behind what is mind and non-mind is a null hypothesis. (that force constitutes the powers of love and looks out for me)

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Can we say my belief in theism needs qualifiers?

My self-identification as a theist comes from my experience of God.

I saw the divine light after the moral choice I made to forgive someone.

(This was literally light and had a personality to it)

In my view divinity is that which cannot be explained by the mind body problem.

In other words, divinity = the force behind what is mind and non-mind is a null hypothesis. (that force constitutes the powers of love and looks out for me)

i might ask something like "what is your definition of THEISM ?"


because, i'd say generally THEISM is associated with a formalized established religious group that adheres to a specific doctrine


if you've been convinced of something you call a god based on personal experience, that is the definition of GNOSIS (direct experience knowledge communion with a divine essence)


so, it might be fair to consider yourself a GNOSTIC

 

[Black Rose]

Theism to me is that there is a mind behind all we see.

We might need to clarify what a mind is but generally, it can observe us and all reality and sometimes interact with us.

I was raised by my mother to read the bible somewhat and believe a mental force controls things. This feeling has never left me so I was never an atheist but sometimes I was agnostic due to lack of feeling anything and mental/emotional numbness. But I remembered that I had to be a moral person like my mom told me to be so I believed God existed as much as I could. I believe that Gnosis is an important thing to have when it comes to encountering divine beings and that you need to have a special kind of intention to receive it. I had taken my moral character to an extreme that day and after this encounter, I continue to ask for guidance even when I feel nothing.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Theism to me is that there is a mind behind all we see.

ok, if that is your understanding of THEISM, then i'd say you clearly qualify

 

[EndogenousRebel]

An argument is a mechanism of persuasion.

You yourself can say that you don't need to persuade yourself, thus you don't need an argument.

However, you still (should) need to persuade others that your belief is rationally sound.

Just like any other belief I don't need to persuade myself to believe, when the time comes to justify it to others, my personal reasoning will probably be utilized into my argument for why I believe what I believe.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

However, you still (should) need to persuade others that your belief is rationally sound.

ATHEISM is not a belief

 

[EndogenousRebel]

However, you still (should) need to persuade others that your belief is rationally sound.

ATHEISM is not a belief

It is determined through beliefs. I wouldn't call a newborn child an atheist, nor a theist, they don't have the agency to believe in anything.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

It is determined through beliefs. I wouldn't call a newborn child an atheist, nor a theist, they don't have the agency to believe in anything.

anyone or anything that is not self-identified as a THEIST

is quite precisely and technically NOT-A-THEIST (ATHEIST)

 

[EndogenousRebel]

It is determined through beliefs. I wouldn't call a newborn child an atheist, nor a theist, they don't have the agency to believe in anything.

anyone or anything that is not self-identified as a THEIST

is quite precisely and technically NOT-A-THEIST (ATHEIST)

Lol if I identify as an apache black hawk helicopter, am I a helicopter? Df is this discussion?

 

[EndogenousRebel]

It's not even a discussion you're just a propagandist at this point with an agenda

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Lol if I identify as an apache black hawk helicopter, am I a helicopter? Df is this discussion?

i'd personally label you "not-a-helicopter" but i really don't know you very well

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

It's not even a discussion you're just a propagandist at this point with an agenda

ok, can you be slightly more specific ?

 

[EndogenousRebel]

It's not even a discussion you're just a propagandist at this point with an agenda

ok, can you be slightly more specific ?

If someone were to write to me, the way I apparently need to communicate with you, it would suggest that they are insulting my intelligence.

"Could you be more specific" about what? Asking a vague question such as you have, is asking to just see the scope of someone's argument so you can cherry pick and poke holes in something that may be overall, irrelevant.

This is what you are trying to accomplish with that question for example. You are not engaging in a discussion where you want to come to a higher truth value, you have already made up your mind, and you will not move from there.

That is what I mean by your are a propagandist, and you have an agenda.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Atheism only exists in respect to theism.
Atheist don't greet each other with secret handshake " hey I identify as atheist".
Only people who identify atheists are theists.

Atheists are not aware of atheism unless THERE IS theism.

Its kind of like blacks don't identify as black race, unless they know there is white race.

 

[Black Rose]

Now that I qualify as a theist, I can say that atheism is a belief.

@EndogenousRebel is correct that a belief about God not existing is not agnostic.

This means if I have a belief that God is or is not then that is not the same as to my ignorance like a baby can't be a vegan or not a vegan because that choice is not in their belief system. A child cannot be both believing and not believing at the same time and thus a belief is a conscious act to accept or reject some proposition. How is a child supposed to believe in other minds or not, it can only feel mom's heartbeat and warmth. So a complex subject is beyond the knowledge of what is and is not theism. Simply; Does baby believe in mama? or are they unconvinced?

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

That is what I mean by your are a propagandist, and you have an agenda.

propaganda​

pro·pa·gan·da

: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person


i'm wondering how simply not self-identifying as a THEIST

does any "damage" whatsoever to ANY institution

does any "damage" whatsoever to ANY cause

does any "damage" whatsoever to ANY person


can you provide even one example ?

you seem to be grasping at straws here

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Now that I qualify as a theist, I can say that atheism is a belief.

you are certainly the absolute author and authority of your own belief and self-identification


but you are NOT the absolute author and authority of anyone else's belief and self-identification


ask any number of ATHEISTS what they believe and why

you will get a broad spectrum of responses


but i can 100% guarantee


that none of them will tell you they SELF-IDENTIFY as a THEIST




and if they DON'T self-identify specifically as a THEIST


they WILL always absolutely qualify as "NOT-A-THEIST"

 

[Black Rose]

ask any number of ATHEISTS what they believe and why

How can you ask a baby if they are not a theist?

babies only understand that mama exists.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

i'm wondering how simply not self-identifying as a THEIST

does any "damage" whatsoever to ANY institution

does any "damage" whatsoever to ANY cause

does any "damage" whatsoever to ANY person

you seem to be grasping at straws here

If you really were confident in your ideological basis, you would engage in the discussion with what I am actually saying and mean. Not trying to re-frame what I am saying to fit what you think is best to counter your argument.

You are creating a one-way channel of communication, because you aren't meaningfully engaging with what is being said.

When you write something, I respond. When you respond to what I respond, you pick what you want to respond to and discard whatever is inconvenient for your argument. Hence you don't want to be persuaded, you just want to spread your ideology. Hence, a propagandist. Are you confused by the word "propaganda"? Root word being "propagate"?

Even if I am charitable to you, and assume you are misguided in your interpretations, and language IS open to interpretation, by my estimate you're just twisting what I'm writing to mean whatever you want.

What I'm writing isn't that complicated is it? So you either lack native language comprehension (skill issue) or you are a not a good faith interlocutor.

Anyone who acts like a propagandist is a threat to all forms of communication and good faith discussion in every context.

Regardless of what I think about religion or theism or atheism, I have to point this out. You are saying I am grasping at straws when your the one that pulls out a dictionary and try to make a semantic argument in an attempt to make me look incompetently facetious.

Even in this post, I am reiterating the same thing multiple times so that you do not confuse what I am trying to say and my motivation. I have these dicussions because they are interesting. When I talk to someone like you, they are less interesting for the sake of the ideas being talked about, and more interesting as a case study in someones pathological antisocial behavior.

 

[Black Rose]

When you write something, I respond. When you respond to what I respond, you pick what you want to respond to and discard whatever is inconvenient for your argument. Hence you don't want to be persuaded, you just want to spread your ideology.

I think he conceded that the baby question was relevant because he conveniently ignored half of my statements. Babies do not have beliefs in the normal sense, they cannot be atheists.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

When you write something, I respond. When you respond to what I respond, you pick what you want to respond to and discard whatever is inconvenient for your argument. Hence you don't want to be persuaded, you just want to spread your ideology.

I think he conceded that the baby question was relevant because he conveniently ignored half of my statements. Babies do not have beliefs in the normal sense, they cannot be atheists.

"Not a theist" if he wants to have a semantic argument, we just reframe the definition of God and spiritualism in materialistic terms and they are just natural entities like anything else.

Are you still a theist if the omnipotent entity is right in front of you and able to repurpose your cells at the atomic level?

It's a silly way to engage in a discussion to just say a label is as simple as a linguistic definition. What language represents is usually very complex, even if you can linguistically sum it up in a couple words.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Babies do not have beliefs in the normal sense, they cannot be atheists.

ATHEIST IS NOT A BELIEF! ENGLISH?

You guys are very dense for people who can understand concepts.

This is not about whether you are wrong, because that is obvious, this about why your guys are wrong.

We could argue about some such position as positive atheism or some such positions in theory, where the goal is to establish that there must not be GOD.
But atheism as such is without GOD.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

How can you ask a baby if they are not a theist?

babies only understand that mama exists.

if you ask someone "do you self-identify as a THEIST ?"

and they don't say "YES"

it is quite safe to conclude they are "NOT-A-THEIST" = ATHEIST

 

[EndogenousRebel]

At some point we have to make a glossary of terms because you guys clearly want to hold a monopoly on language.

I am glad to meet you where you are, don't strain your mind trying to do the mind-bending work of meeting in the middle. We can have the discussion on your terms, I'm just not sure that some are capable of being resolute.

 

[Black Rose]

atheism as such is without GOD

babies are without God?

how would that be established?

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

we just reframe the definition of God and spiritualism in materialistic terms and they are just natural entities like anything else.

ATHEISM has never and will never make any claims whatsoever of "materialism"

 

[EndogenousRebel]

we just reframe the definition of God and spiritualism in materialistic terms and they are just natural entities like anything else.

ATHEISM has never and will never make any claims whatsoever of "materialism"

According to you they don't make any claims at all. It's just absence of God or whatever the fuck that means

 

[ZenRaiden]

babies are without God?

NO, babies just are.
Its a nonsense question. Just because we can put it into language does not mean its true.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

At some point we have to make a glossary of terms because you guys clearly want to hold a monopoly on language.

i'm not sure you could call the definition of a single word a "glossary"


ATHEISM is quite simply, "NOT-A-THEIST"


if you don't go to a church or a temple or a synagogue or a mosque and you don't worship a god and you don't read a book that you think is inspired by the creator of all things


then you qualify as "NOT-A-THEIST"

 

[Black Rose]

babies are without God?

NO, babies just are.
Its a nonsense question. Just because we can put it into language does not mean its true.

Babies just are is my position.

Babies are not theists or atheists

but

toasters' lack of belief in God makes a toaster an atheist as well.

any object person or place lacking any belief in God is an atheist in your view then?

I am contrasting this to what @LOGICZOMBIE is saying.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

According to you they don't make any claims at all. It's just absence of God or whatever the fuck that means

the word itself "ATHEISM" makes no claims other than "NOT-A-THEIST"


certainly, SOME people who self-identify as ATHEISTS make other claims


but the only claim specifically associated with the word itself


is

simply, "NOT-A-THEIST"

 

[EndogenousRebel]

babies are without God?

NO, babies just are.
Its a nonsense question. Just because we can put it into language does not mean its true.

But it's not just a useless rhetorical device. When do you grant babies the privileged of adopting beliefs? 5 yo, 8 yo 18 yo?

If anything, I could argue that most theists aren't actually theists, because they were indoctrinated since a young age, they had no agency in the matter. Do you see where I'm going with this?

ATHEISM is quite simply, "NOT-A-THEIST"


if you don't go to a church or a temple or a synagogue or a mosque and you don't worship a god and you don't read a book that you think is inspired by the creator of all things


then you qualify as "NOT-A-THEIST"

Do you really think that is what I am hung up on, or are you just smelling your own farts? Asocial, means not social. Amoral means not moral. I think that's well established, but thank you for reiterating that.

 

[ZenRaiden]

any object person or place lacking any belief in God is an atheist in your view then?

Well just follow your own logic then and see where it leads you?

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

toasters' lack of belief in God makes a toaster an atheist as well.

YES, NOW YOU UNDERSTAND


does a toaster go to a church and worship a god and follow a holy doctrine ?


probably not


so you can say with confidence

and with zero logical contradictions


"a toaster is NOT A THEIST"

 

[Black Rose]

 

[ZenRaiden]

If anything, I could argue that most theists aren't actually theists, because they were indoctrinated since a young age, they had no agency in the matter. Do you see where I'm going with this?

Yes your trying to ask me where the agency of person begins.
That is a good question.

But how do I know?
Were you a pizza lower all yourlife, or was Pizza enforced on your mind and because you were given trashy food all your life now your body adopted it as good source of calories.
We can actually question everything with this.
However you can simply ask a person when and how they understand concepts.
There is also no way of knowing why we believe anything, without having agency as part of definition.

That leads to one question and that is when do we grant agency to a person.
But I can certainly claim babies don't have agency.
They don't even have conception.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Amoral means not moral.

what terms currently under discussion do you believe require a new glossary ?

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

this is correct, ATHEISM is not a belief

ATHEISM is an absence of belief

specifically an absence of belief in THEISM

just like this can of beans

no argument is required to "defend" an absence of belief

 

[EndogenousRebel]

That leads to one question and that is when do we grant agency to a person.
But I can certainly claim babies don't have agency.
They don't even have conception.

I would make the argument that discrete (unit) rationality is the only way to really determine this.

It is the method that is done in court after all to determine if someone is suitable to stand trial or give testimony. Best we got unless you have alternatives?

If you seem to be able to cohesively give a rational and agreeable argument for something, then it should stand that you have at least the agency to believe in something.

If little Jimmy is 8 years old and is atheist because his dad is atheist, then is Jimmy actually an atheist if he can't really say why he's an atheist or is he an atheist because he says he's an atheist?

Same for the 50 year old evangelisist that has never been challenged. If you can stump them with one question, are they really Christian if you can blatantly see that they haven't even explored the other options or are they just a herded like sheep by cultural forces they never stopped to question?

Amoral means not moral.

what terms currently under discussion do you believe require a new glossary ?

Atheism is just lack of God, got that.

What is an Atheist, to you? We can start there.

 

[Black Rose]

The agency of a person is important.

Can atheist beans be converted to theism?

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Can atheist beans be converted to theism?

I hope for the day the conversion camps close.

 

[Black Rose]

Conversion is not prescriptive.

It can only happen if your heart is touched.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Same for the 50 year old evangelisist that has never been challenged. If you can stump them with one question, are they really Christian if you can blatantly see that they haven't even explored the other options or are they just a herded like sheep by cultural forces they never stopped to question?

Would I be Christian if I believed I am Christian, but not actually believed in anything Christian?
In that sense its possible lots of people are not Christian, but call themselves that.

A kid is atheist because dad is atheist is question of memetics.
I do think imposing beliefs on kids is somewhat dumb, but society imposes everything on us one way or another.

We become agents of choice when we can freely choose.
Freedom of choice is a big problem.
Because can we actually have such freedom?