㊙️ THE STRONGEST ARGUMENT FOR ATHEISM (TSAFA)

[LOGICZOMBIE]

You are using this to say that our beliefs cannot be proven so it does not matter that much what we believe.

not exactly

i'm simply trying to point out that many claims have no discernable truth value

you can believe whatever you wish

and that may or may not be "important" depending on the practical consequences

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

I have not studied all these and don't know all of what each of them believes. But I fail to see your point in any case.

not all "christians" agree on what it means to be a "christian"

in the same way

not all "atheists" agree on what it means to be an "atheist"

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

For example, you can't prove that the universe did not come to be 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age, but we are rational in believing that the universe is not 5 minutes old.

are there any practical or moral implications that hinge on this particular hypothesis being considered "true" or "untrue" ?

and if this or similar hypotheticals yield no discernable advantage or disadvantage

they are moot

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

I already gave you the dictionary definition of agnostic and atheist but of course,

there is no practical distinction between "not believe" and "does not know" - - they both clearly "lack belief"

Definition of ATHEISM

a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods; a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods; godlessness especially in conduct : ungodliness, wickedness… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[Black Rose]

In the USA we have the freedom to believe things because the rules of the constitution say the government cannot force you to believe things as we have the 1st amendment. So when it comes to what is true or not, it matters that people have the right to decide for themselves. Only when people start to force others into illegitimate conformity does it become a problem because we as a society need to be individuals where kings and tyrants don't take control because those people begin to hurt others, devalue others, and take away rights from everyone.

So when it comes to religion, the people who created the Constitution saw that no one sect could have a monopoly on beliefs or then they would take control and eliminate all other sects. This then is what created a diversity and freedom of thought they believed was important given the period of enlightenment values at that time.

We could say in this discussion that the a-theist does not want to be defined in any terms of forced coercion of having to justify what they believe. This means if they were forced to justify their beliefs, they would need to be forced to do other things. This would spiral into other such coercions.

The bottom line is you cannot force people to believe or not believe something.

That means if you try and force them you get into legal debates of dictionary definitions as such. You force them to defend themselves by making it a matter of human rights violations. Thus you force them to demand you serve the consequences of a legal battle.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

In the USA we have the freedom to believe things because the rules of the constitution say the government cannot force you to believe things as we have the 1st amendment. So when it comes to what is true or not, it matters that people have the right to decide for themselves. Only when people start to force others into illegitimate conformity does it become a problem because we as a society need to be individuals where kings and tyrants don't take control because those people begin to hurt others, devalue others, and take away rights from everyone.

So when it comes to religion, the people who created the Constitution saw that no one sect could have a monopoly on beliefs or then they would take control and eliminate all other sects. This then is what created a diversity and freedom of thought they believed was important given the period of enlightenment values at that time.

We could say in this discussion that the a-theist does not want to be defined in any terms of forced coercion of having to justify what they believe. This means if they were forced to justify their beliefs, they would need to be forced to do other things. This would spiral into other such coercions.

The bottom line is you cannot force people to believe or not believe something.

That means if you try and force them you get into legal debates of dictionary definitions as such. You force them to defend themselves by making it a matter of human rights violations. Thus you force them to demand you serve the consequences of a legal battle.

well stated

 

[Old Things]

You are using this to say that our beliefs cannot be proven so it does not matter that much what we believe.

not exactly

i'm simply trying to point out that many claims have no discernable truth value

you can believe whatever you wish

and that may or may not be "important" depending on the practical consequences

If you believe false things, bad things happen. If you believe true things, good things happen. It is always important what we believe because what we believe has consequences.

I have not studied all these and don't know all of what each of them believes. But I fail to see your point in any case.

not all "christians" agree on what it means to be a "christian"

in the same way

not all "atheists" agree on what it means to be an "atheist"

If 99% of Christians think that the 1% of Christians are not really Christians, then they are not Christians. Put another way, if a whole denomination of Christianity does not believe what the Bible says, they are not Christians.

For example, you can't prove that the universe did not come to be 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age, but we are rational in believing that the universe is not 5 minutes old.

are there any practical or moral implications that hinge on this particular hypothesis being considered "true" or "untrue" ?

and if this or similar hypotheticals yield no discernable advantage or disadvantage

they are moot

There are always consequences for what we believe. For example, in pretty much every atheistic regime, it has led to very poor conditions for the people of that country. Soviet Russia is a really good example of this. When you take God out of the equation, it is not good for that place. Conversely, when you put God in places where God wasn't before, good things happen for that place.

 

[Old Things]

View attachment 8056

I actually LOL'd at this. I found it funny. Especially since we are on an MBTI website and Jung specifically mentioned the idea of men going out in the rain with and without an umbrella.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I honestly did not know he talked about that.

View attachment 8056

I actually LOL'd at this. I found it funny. Especially since we are on an MBTI website and Jung specifically mentioned the idea of men going out in the rain with and without an umbrella.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

If you believe false things, bad things happen. If you believe true things, good things happen.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

If 99% of Christians think that the 1% of Christians are not really Christians, then they are not Christians.

A majority of all American Christians (52%) think that at least some non-Christian faiths can lead to eternal life.

Many Americans Say Other Faiths Can Lead to Eternal Life

In this report: Who can go to heaven? How does one obtain eternal life? Trends in opinions about religious exclusivity About the survey A majority of all

www.pewresearch.org

 

[Old Things]

If 99% of Christians think that the 1% of Christians are not really Christians, then they are not Christians.

A majority of all American Christians (52%) think that at least some non-Christian faiths can lead to eternal life.

Many Americans Say Other Faiths Can Lead to Eternal Life

In this report: Who can go to heaven? How does one obtain eternal life? Trends in opinions about religious exclusivity About the survey A majority of all

www.pewresearch.org

The American church right now is pretty weak. Only 6% of the population of America holds a Biblical worldview.

 

[Old Things]

You force them to defend themselves by making it a matter of human rights violations.

Stop being dramatic. I am not forcing anyone to do anything. If someone wants to say, "I lack a belief in God (or whatever else)" then they can say that, and then we can all not take them seriously for not wanting to defend their presumption.

 

[Black Rose]

Stop being dramatic.

Why do you think I am being dramatic?

I am not forcing anyone to do anything.

Good, neither am I

I was only looking at it from a different perspective.

You can see that no one needs to defend a belief unless they want to.

The fact that we need to start using dictionaries says that this discussion is kinda mute.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Why do you think I am being dramatic?

An ad hominem argument is a personal attack against the source of an argument, rather than against the argument itself. Essentially, this means that ad hominem arguments are used to attack opposing views indirectly, by attacking the individuals or groups that present these views.

 

[Old Things]

Why do you think I am being dramatic?

Because you are equating disagreement and saying if someone has a view they should be able to defend it with a human rights issue.

 

[Black Rose]

Why do you think I am being dramatic?

Because you are equating disagreement and saying if someone has a view they should be able to defend it with a human rights issue.

You ignored the context.

Do you want me to repeat myself?

Those who created the Constitution knew that disagreement would lead to tyranny.

That specifically means they made it so people would be allowed to disagree.

Beforehand (before the Enlightenment) people were forced to agree.

This continues to be an issue, why should atheists or anyone with different views need to defend those views that need not be defended unless they are forced to defend them? At what point does disagreement become forced coercion on some party's side? I am not saying you did anything wrong but a context exists nonetheless.

 

[Old Things]

This continues to be an issue, why should atheists or anyone with different views need to defend those views that need not be defended unless they are forced to defend them?

Because it matters what is true. People don't HAVE to defend their views, but then we don't have to take them seriously. If you want people to think what you believe is true, then you have to be able to defend your view.

 

[Black Rose]

Well, I guess that depends on who your peer group is.

I will not waste time on people who make it clear they are not going to understand me. At least I am not going to do battle on Twitter against hordes of people who are against me. People are group-minded anyway. (tribalism)

 

[Old Things]

I will not waste time on people who make it clear they are not going to understand me. At least I am not going to do battle on Twitter against hordes of people who are against me. People are group-minded anyway.

That seems to be a difference between you and I. I will make my case in the face of opposition. Seems like you don't want to do that.

 

[ZenRaiden]

That seems to be a difference between you and I. I will make my case in the face of opposition. Seems like you don't want to do that.

You are then claiming that its duty of yours to dispel things like Buddhism and Hinduism and so on... essentially this type of reasoning means you have to disprove a religion too.

 

[Old Things]

That seems to be a difference between you and I. I will make my case in the face of opposition. Seems like you don't want to do that.

You are then claiming that its duty of yours to dispel things like Buddhism and Hinduism and so on... essentially this type of reasoning means you have to disprove a religion too.

No? All I have to do is show my view is true. I might have to show that according to my view, these other views cannot be true, but it is enough to show that my view is true. Because if these other views contradict my view and my view is true, then that is all I have to do to dispel these other views.

 

[Black Rose]

I will not waste time on people who make it clear they are not going to understand me. At least I am not going to do battle on Twitter against hordes of people who are against me. People are group-minded anyway.

That seems to be a difference between you and I. I will make my case in the face of opposition. Seems like you don't want to do that.

You making this comparison between yourself and me shows you don't know me.

Don't project onto me your inability to understand properly.

I never said I would not defend my beliefs.

I am only saying that in this discussion you cannot force people in general to do things.

@LOGICZOMBIE simply is making it clear that any atheist needs no justification for what they believe and if they do then that requires some kind of coercion.

We are all free to discuss the matter but to try and corner people into some kind of position would not benefit anyone unless you are trying to go along with some kind of agenda yourself. People do not like it when you corner them because that is a sign of coercion. I myself do not appreciate you projecting on me your false image of me. And so I will ask you to stop. Do not make it a personal issue with me because I do not accept any personal attacks against me. You do not know me.

 

[ZenRaiden]

All I have to do is show my view is true.

Sure, but what about Christianity can your prove?

 

[Old Things]

I will not waste time on people who make it clear they are not going to understand me. At least I am not going to do battle on Twitter against hordes of people who are against me. People are group-minded anyway.

That seems to be a difference between you and I. I will make my case in the face of opposition. Seems like you don't want to do that.

You making this comparison between yourself and me shows you don't know me.

Don't project onto me your inability to understand properly.

I never said I would not defend my beliefs.

I am only saying that in this discussion you cannot force people in general to do things.

@LOGICZOMBIE simply is making it clear that any atheist needs no justification for what they believe and if they do then that requires some kind of coercion.

We are all free to discuss the matter but to try and corner people into some kind of position would not benefit anyone unless you are trying to go along with some kind of agenda yourself. People do not like it when you corner them because that is a sign of coercion. I myself do not appreciate you projecting on me your false image of me. And so I will ask you to stop. Do not make it a personal issue with me because I do not accept any personal attacks against me. You do not know me.

I'm just going based on what you said yourself. You said you would not defend your views against opposition. So now that I point that out you tell me I am projecting. No projecting is necessary when you simply follow the logic of what you said.

All I have to do is show my view is true.

Sure, but what about Christianity can your prove?

I mean, it depends on what you mean by "proof." I cannot satisfactorily show to every person that Christ rose from the dead. But I can show that any person who is reasonable and open to the evidence that Christ did indeed rise from the dead thereby showing Christianity is true.

 

[Black Rose]

I'm just going based on what you said yourself. You said you would not defend your views against opposition. So now that I point that out you tell me I am projecting. No projecting is necessary when you simply follow the logic of what you said.

Certain battles are worth fighting.

You seem to think all battles are equal.

You would die on a hill not worth dying on.

It takes maturity not to fight everyone who says fight me.

 

[Black Rose]

The point is I am not stupid.

I know what is worth fighting for, you don't.

I was offended you called me a coward.

 

[Black Rose]

Imagine a little kid 10 years old

He tells me to eat dirt or I don't love my mother

Because I am 36 years old I would ignore him.

But old things would expect me to appease the ten-year-old

That is what I get from his accusations of me having cowardice.

Totally ignoring what I said about people having the right to believe what they want to believe without coercion. I love my mother no matter what that ten-year-old is coercing me to do.

If some random person told me to kill myself or I do not love my mom, I would not kill myself because that is a stupid way to defend my honor. Why placate to some random person's demands? Coercion is a bad thing and you should never accept that it is not. If I killed myself I would be stupid.

The same applies to be for videogames as well.

I lost the videogame level number 12, maybe I should kill myself? Stupid.

You don't need to die because you lost, you don't need to fight the Twitter mob.

You can believe stuff without having to fight anyone.

 

[ZenRaiden]

But I can show that any person who is reasonable and open to the evidence that Christ did indeed rise from the dead thereby showing Christianity is true.

Sure. Can we also agree that other religions make certain claims, that have proof?

 

[Old Things]

You seem to think all battles are equal.

Where did I say that? Because it seems to me that you so often talk about me and my views and get my views wrong rather than asking questions. You seem to not be able to help yourself to talk about me rather than to me.

 

[Old Things]

But I can show that any person who is reasonable and open to the evidence that Christ did indeed rise from the dead thereby showing Christianity is true.

Sure. Can we also agree that other religions make certain claims, that have proof?

If you don't think Christianity has proof for the belief that Christ rose from the dead, then I am not going to say that other religions have proof. The fact is that all other religions want a piece of Jesus. They all look up to Him in some way. But the problem is that Christ Himself does not say, "Well, I am one of the ways, but there are other ways too." He says, "No one comes to the Father but by me."

I don't deny that other religions have supernatural claims they can substantiate. I deny that their miracles come from a good place.

 

[Black Rose]

You seem to think all battles are equal.

Where did I say that? Because it seems to me that you so often talk about me and my views and get my views wrong rather than asking questions. You seem to not be able to help yourself to talk about me rather than to me.

You ignored what I said so I had to assume you were saying the opposite of what I was saying. Why do you believe I should fight everyone on twitter?

 

[ZenRaiden]

If you don't think Christianity has proof for the belief that Christ rose from the dead,

What I think is clear as I am not Christian.

I am not going to say that other religions have proof.

Right. Its not about what I believe clearly.

They all look up to Him in some way.

I never heard about this.

But the problem is that Christ Himself does not say, "Well, I am one of the ways, but there are other ways too." He says, "No one comes to the Father but by me."

Yes, so its exclusive.

I don't deny that other religions have supernatural claims they can substantiate. I deny that their miracles come from a good place.

Clearly they disagree with you on that one.

 

[Black Rose]

If you follow the real logic of what I said and not the imaginary logic, you will see that I said @LOGICZOMBIE has the right to be around people and defend his belief if he wants to and everyone has this right. You cannot force people to fight others about what they believe or do not believe because of what is called freedom of association. We all can choose who to interact with or not. Calling me a coward (the imaginary logic of me not defending my beliefs) was not helpful to your position.

 

[Old Things]

You seem to think all battles are equal.

Where did I say that? Because it seems to me that you so often talk about me and my views and get my views wrong rather than asking questions. You seem to not be able to help yourself to talk about me rather than to me.

You ignored what I said so I had to assume you were saying the opposite of what I was saying. Why do you believe I should fight everyone on twitter?

What did I ignore? Why would that mean you have to say I think the opposite of you?

 

[Black Rose]

What did I ignore? Why would that mean you have to say I think the opposite of you?

Are people allowed to not fight if they do not wish to?

Do people have freedom of association and does that mean they are cowards?

The whole issue is why @LOGICZOMBIE is acting as he is, you do not see that?

 

[Old Things]

What did I ignore? Why would that mean you have to say I think the opposite of you?

Are people allowed to not fight if they do not wish to?

Do people have freedom of association and does that mean they are cowards?

The whole issue is why @LOGICZOMBIE is acting as he is, you do not see that?

What can I say except what I have already said twice now. If people don't want to defend their views as being true, then they don't have to. But then no one should be taking their views seriously.

 

[Black Rose]

As you can see I am not a coward.

That may or may not be the difference between you and me.

Please do not make that an issue again, thanks.

 

[Old Things]

As you can see I am not a coward.

That may or may not be the difference between you and me.

Please do not make that an issue again, thanks.

I wasn't calling you a coward. Are you serious right now? I said you do not make your case in the face of opposition (like in the face of a mob on X for example). I will and I have. I am not going to submit to the mob trying to cancel me. I don't roll that way. You said you do submit to the mob. That's all I was saying. I wasn't saying you were a coward. I was saying what I would do or have done. If you don't do that, fine. But it does show you lack some balls.

 

[Black Rose]

As I said: I will not submit myself to ten-year-olds telling me to eat dirt if I do not love my mom. I love my mom without having to eat dirt. The mob can fuck itself because I will not fight a losing battle. After all, that is stupid. I know some people love fighting on Twitter but those people are jerks and assholes. I do not respect those people and neither should you.

 

[Black Rose]

My whole point is that suicide is bad.

You do not need to hang around with people telling you to kill yourself.

submitting yourself to abuse is a form of mental illness

I would not do that and I don't, better people exist to talk to

trying to rationally debate mobs is stupid and why I believe small groups are better

no one expects rational discussion on Twitter, I do not take most of them seriously

again wanting respect from trolls is a mental illness (Stockholms syndrome) so try not to do that. pearls before swine

 

[Old Things]

My whole point is that suicide is bad.

You do not need to hang around with people telling you to kill yourself.

submitting yourself to abuse is a form of mental illness

I would not do that and I don't, better people exist to talk to

trying to rationally debate mobs is stupid and why I believe small groups are better

no one expects rational discussion on Twitter, I do not take most of them seriously

again wanting respect from trolls is a mental illness (Stockholms syndrome) so try not to do that. pearls before swine

You equate my view to suicide.

Let me tell you something. I have made a post on Twitter that ended up having 3 million views. I didn't back down because I realized that people had reasons for what they were saying. I ended up making an article about it. It's just not the same as 10-year-olds telling me to eat dirt. It's a really weird equivocation you are trying to make here. Am I going to argue with a person who has no sense and is trolling me? Of course not. All I am saying is that if I get attacked for a view I have, I will fight back. I'm not just going to bend over and let them stick it in. I will ignore pointless comments, but I will address the people who are not just being dumb on purpose. There is a difference between engaging with trolls and actually holding your ground when you are attacked.

 

[Black Rose]

You equate my view to suicide.

no

but, some people cannot defend themselves and you expect them to, so I don't engage.

 

[Black Rose]

many people take me seriously without me having to fight everyone all the time

but I get to choose those people, so many people ignore me and that is fine.

 

[Old Things]

no

What was your "whole point" related to then?

 

[Old Things]

but, some people cannot defend themselves and you expect them to, so I don't engage.

Don't say something if you can't defend it. Seems pretty simple to me.

 

[Black Rose]

no

What was your "whole point" related to then?

Saying I have no balls because I want to avoid abuse is a cruel and heartless thing to say. I do not think you said that explicitly or on purpose but it is hard to get what you say all the time.

What I want is to talk to people who will not judge me like that but those people are not on Twitter. So I said small is better. People do take me seriously without attacking me mostly in real life. The internet is different but not all people attack others there and I have tried to find those spaces. I am not saying defending yourself is bad, I am saying most people only look for people like themselves to feel comfortable saying what they really think, and attacking people is not what makes people take others seriously, in fact, it does the opposite. I like discussions but not when others attack me or others, that is when I take them less seriously.

Don't say something if you can't defend it. Seems pretty simple to me.

No one cares about your beliefs if they are attacking you.

They don't want to understand you if that is the case.

Real non-judgemental situations are the only times people truly wish to understand.

As I said, I can talk to people whom I believe will not attack me.

Those people don't need to defend anything from me because I am not trying to destroy them. Those conditions are in place when people take each other completely seriously.

It is completely appropriate to say, only talk to people who will accept you.

There is no reason for people to have to deal with anyone they don't want to.

That relates to the freedom of everyone being able to believe what they want.

And I can say whatever I want to say, I do not need to defend it because of the first amendment. Anyone forcing me to debate them can't stop me from saying what I want and also ignoring them. It just depends on how I feel about who I want to talk to and I respect others right to do so as well.

 

[Old Things]

Saying I have no balls because I want to avoid abuse is a cruel and heartless thing to say.

It's a good thing I didn't say that then. Why do you always assume the worst in what I am saying? Why can't you just stick to what I actually say? You might say I was doing the same thing by saying you don't defend yourself against opposition, but your view is exactly that, so what I said is completely accurate because it is a logical consequence of what you originally said.

It is completely appropriate to say, only talk to people who will accept you.

If you are not saying anything controversial, you are saying essentially nothing. If you would rather be around a bunch of people who are just going to constantly affirm everything you say, you are living in a fantasy world (echo chamber). People are sometimes fake in person because they are not the same person they are online as they are in person. But if every person you ever talk to just agrees with everything you say, then you are not really having meaningful conversations with people.

 

[Black Rose]

Saying I have no balls because I want to avoid abuse is a cruel and heartless thing to say.

It's a good thing I didn't say that then. Why do you always assume the worst in what I am saying? Why can't you just stick to what I actually say? You might say I was doing the same thing by saying you don't defend yourself against opposition, but your view is exactly that, so what I said is completely accurate because it is a logical consequence of what you originally said.

If you were to understand what I actually said more often I would not need to go on all the tangents but you take everything apart manipulating it into what I did not say intentionally or unintentionally.

It is completely appropriate to say, only talk to people who will accept you.

If you are not saying anything controversial, you are saying essentially nothing. If you would rather be around a bunch of people who are just going to constantly affirm everything you say, you are living in a fantasy world (echo chamber). People are sometimes fake in person because they are not the same person they are online as they are in person. But if every person you ever talk to just agrees with everything you say, then you are not really having meaningful conversations with people.

Meaningful conversations begin with trust.

I am saying that people need trust before they get attacked by those who they don't know. And they don't need people attacking them 24/7 - people have the right to not be abused. At some point, you don't learn anything from those who attack you.

 

[Old Things]

If you were to understand what I actually said more often I would not need to go on all the tangents but you take everything apart manipulating it into what I did not say intentionally or unintentionally.

You are literally blaming me for what you are doing. You keep saying that I don't understand things, but I see no evidence that I don't understand things. It just looks like an empty accusation to me.