What's the strongest argument for atheism?

[LOGICZOMBIE]

certainly, experts exist, but where would the line be drawn?

you and maybe your close friends and relatives decide if and when you "cross the line" from "functional" to "non-functional"

 

[Old Things]

I'm not. Why should I have to repeat myself?

because you have failed to make your point

i'm asking if you can be more specific

Nihilism is the logical conclusion of atheism.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Then there is belief, where I believe strongly something or less.
Usually what people call facts, are strong beliefs in my book.

Kind of true tho.

Opinions often come from assumptions we make about the world.

I have seen people argue over a color of bag. One said its blue the other its green?

 

[ZenRaiden]

Nihilism is the logical conclusion of atheism.

Well I cannot see the logic there to be honest.
I can see it happen.

 

[Old Things]

Nihilism is the logical conclusion of atheism.

Well I cannot see the logic there to be honest.
I can see it happen.

Did you watch the video I linked?

 

[ZenRaiden]

Did you watch the video I linked?

Not really.

 

[Old Things]

Did you watch the video I linked?

Not really.

That will get you started on it.

 

[ZenRaiden]

That will get you started on it.

Not interested. Really doubt it.

 

[Old Things]

That will get you started on it.

Not interested. Really doubt it.

Well, I'm not going to force you, but it's pretty obvious once you see it.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

atheism = no life after death

not necessarily

I would say yes it is.

If you hold the position that you aren't going to believe something based on the absence of a certain quality of evidence, I would say that atheists would have to opt for some sci-fi reason for life after death, because otherwise, a monotheistic god being unaccepptable is a double standard. When people propose an afterlife, they usually mean a a priori ontological one, which means the universe is not indifferent to sentient life, which is a metaphysical characteristic being ascribed to existence itself.

I would say that the average atheist isn't necessarily more of a critical thinker more so than a theist, but they are definitely more skeptical, and there is plenty to be skeptical about the premise of an afterlife.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

If you hold the position that you aren't going to believe something based on the absence of a certain quality of evidence

that's not a prerequisite for ATHEISM

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

and there is plenty to be skeptical about the premise of an afterlife.

simulation theory is much more plausible than the story of noah's ark

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Well, I'm not going to force you, but it's pretty obvious once you see it.

your vid makes blatantly unsupported claims

you can do that all on your own

no vdo needed

 

[Old Things]

your vid makes blatantly unsupported claims

Let me know which ones and we can talk about it.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Let me know which ones and we can talk about it.

do our lives have any significance - - "no god" = no objective meaning value purpose - - appeal to "atheist authority" - - "no god" = physical only (false) - - when she says "nature" it sounds like "nietzsche" - - "no god" = no objective morality (without justifying a specific code of objective ethics) - - another appeal to "atheist authority" - - shifts BoP strawmans "human flourishing" - - hume's guillotine - - tries to argue it is unfair for everyone to meet the same fate, even though the bible does not promise "eternal torture" but merely "eternal death" - - cure cancer and save a child - - shifts BoP demands to know "why good" (without demanding the same from "with god") - - unsupported claim "nobody can live like an atheist" - - closing argument "christians are happy" - - why not just inject heroin ?

 

[Old Things]

Let me know which ones and we can talk about it.

do our lives have any significance - - "no god" = no objective meaning value purpose - - appeal to "atheist authority" - - "no god" = physical only (false) - - when she says "nature" it sounds like "nietzsche" - - "no god" = no objective morality (without justifying a specific code of objective ethics) - - another appeal to "atheist authority" - - shifts BoP strawmans "human flourishing" - - hume's guillotine - - tries to argue it is unfair for everyone to meet the same fate, even though the bible does not promise "eternal torture" but merely "eternal death" - - cure cancer and save a child - - shifts BoP demands to know "why good" (without demanding the same from "with god") - - unsupported claim "nobody can live like an atheist" - - closing argument "christians are happy" - - why not just inject heroin ?

So what you are largely saying is that you can't make any sort of claims about atheism, what atheists have said, the fundamental axioms of atheism, and definitely can't compare it to Christianity. IDK what world you are living in, but this is how philosophy is generally done in philosophy of religion. Also, you seem to take all the connecting pieces out of what is said. It is a tactic many skeptics use to reduce the argument down to absurdities without accounting for all the data, which is what you are doing here.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

the fundamental axioms of atheism

SIMPLY, NOT-A-THEIST

there is no other claim

there is no "atheist priesthood"

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

and definitely can't compare it to Christianity

compare and or contrast all you want, but make the same demands from both sides

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

IDK what world you are living in, but this is how philosophy is generally done in philosophy of religion.

yeah, i know

shifting BoP and strawmanning all day long

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Also, you seem to take all the connecting pieces out of what is said.

i'm not writing a goddamned transcript

if you think some "important context" is missing

make it explicit

 

[sushi]

spritual nihilism= no heaven, no hell no God

we become oblivion after we die

therefore close to atheism.

 

[Old Things]

IDK what world you are living in, but this is how philosophy is generally done in philosophy of religion.

yeah, i know

shifting BoP and strawmanning all day long

Atheists have just as much of a BoP as theists do. To deny this is dishonest.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

therefore close to atheism

ATHEISM does not contain a demand of "no afterlife"

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Atheists have just as much of a BoP as theists do. To deny this is dishonest.

sure, shared BoP is expected

but your vid only demands explanations from ATHEIST and does not make those same demands of THEIST

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

More Christians Divorce Than Non-Believers According To Statistics | News24

www.news24.com

 

[EndogenousRebel]

If you hold the position that you aren't going to believe something based on the absence of a certain quality of evidence

that's not a prerequisite for ATHEISM

Believing in ghost in the machine aren't a prerequisite to theism, but a lot of them believe them. You're basically saying that Atheists are just as if not more incoherent than Theists, which I think is pretty funny.

and there is plenty to be skeptical about the premise of an afterlife.

simulation theory is much more plausible than the story of noah's ark

As soon as you start talking about plausibility things go out the window because you're talking about probability, which inherently unpredictable. You have to tell me why Creationism is not plausible.

You want to quibble on the "plausibility" of things, if Creationism is a Full House, Simulation Theory is a Ace Three-of-Kind. Sure.

I'm telling you that if an Atheist thinks that there is a certainty to the accuracy of Simulation Theory, they aren't that much better than a Theist who believes in creationism.

Fact is, we need the information the see which hand is the highest hand. We need all the cards in what order in the deck, and we need all the cards in the field that will be played, and all the hands of the other people playing.

This is the problem with logic, you can justify anything when you're playing, because you are human and will make the error of bias and value some information over other information, when flat out, you don't have all the information till everyone reveals their hand, when you've already lost or won.

 

[Old Things]

Atheists have just as much of a BoP as theists do. To deny this is dishonest.

sure, shared BoP is expected

but your vid only demands explanations from ATHEIST and does not make those same demands of THEIST

The subject is not atheism vs Christianity per se. It is about meaning and what worldview has a better answer to the question of meaning.

So if you have an argument in how Christianity does not give meaning, let's hear it.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Believing in ghost in the machine aren't a prerequisite to theism, but a lot of them believe them. You're basically saying that Atheists are just as if not more incoherent than Theists, which I think is pretty funny.

what part of ATHEIST doctrine requires non-belief in "afterlife" ?

ATHEIST is not a club or an organization

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

I'm telling you that if an Atheist thinks that there is a certainty to the accuracy of Simulation Theory

nobody came anywhere close to claiming "certainty"

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

This is the problem with logic, you can justify anything when you're playing,

this statement is provably false

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

You have to tell me why Creationism is not plausible.

we're talking about noah's ark

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Believing in ghost in the machine aren't a prerequisite to theism, but a lot of them believe them. You're basically saying that Atheists are just as if not more incoherent than Theists, which I think is pretty funny.

what part of ATHEIST doctrine requires non-belief in "afterlife" ?

ATHEIST is not a club or an organization

The very invocation of the word afterlife, implicitly conflicts with beliefs atheists hold due to cultural context.

If you want to say future transhumanist civilizations make the afterlife possible, that's one thing. It's science fiction.

Are you going to imply that religious believers are engaging in science fiction?

I'd like you to tell me what type of an afterlife an atheist would believe in then?

 

[EndogenousRebel]

You have to tell me why Creationism is not plausible.

we're talking about noah's ark

That's a red herring. Who gives a flying f u c k about some parable concocted by people thousands of years ago?

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

So if you have an argument in how Christianity does not give meaning, let's hear it.

i have a feeling you don't even realize you just shifted from positive claim to negative claim


to ATHEIST - "prove objective morality"

to THEIST - "prove objective morality"

this is shared BoP

the exact same demand

for each side

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

The very invocation of the word afterlife, implicitly conflicts with beliefs atheists hold due to cultural context.

provably false

i know many ATHEISTS who believe in all kinds of insane shit

the one and only stipulation required to fully and 100% qualify as an ATHEIST

is simply, NOT-A-THEIST

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

I'd like you to tell me what type of an afterlife an atheist would believe in then?

any afterlife that does not include THEISTIC god(s)


just one of many possible examples,

Am I still an atheist if I believe in reincarnation?

Answer (1 of 120): As I grew up, my father was two people. He was a scientist. He was a Christian. He loved to weave stories of spirit and space and stuff and everything in between. He regaled me about how, when I wasn't even two years old, he'd say “Three quarks make …” And I'd reply, “A proton...

www.quora.com

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

That's a red herring. Who gives a flying f u c k about some parable concocted by people thousands of years ago?

a few billion christians

 

[Old Things]

ATHEIST is not a club or an organization

doctrine

Heh.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

The very invocation of the word afterlife, implicitly conflicts with beliefs atheists hold due to cultural context.

provably false

i know many ATHEISTS who believe in all kinds of insane shit

the one and only stipulation required to fully and 100% qualify as an ATHEIST

is simply, NOT-A-THEIST

That's a red herring. Who gives a flying f u c k about some parable concocted by people thousands of years ago?

a few billion christians

Christians believe n Christ as God. What are you talking about?

So you're allowed to create a straw man of all Christians but if I try to accurately characterize the average atheist and why they believe what they believe you come in and you give a final ruling?

We can both participate in bad faith arguments if you want

The same way of vegan can be reduced to someone who just doesn't engage in exploitation of animals, that probably comes with it a whole other set of beliefs and expectations then a non-vegan or someone who is a vegetarian.

The only afterlife an atheist should believe is being put in the dirt and decomposing. I would argue with an atheist over this if they don't because otherwise their belief is incoherent. Simply not believing in something is that an argument to believe in something else which is what you're trying to pose here.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

That's a red herring. Who gives a flying f u c k about some parable concocted by people thousands of years ago?

also, i thought you claimed something like,

"This is the problem with logic, you can justify anything when you're playing"



here's your chance to prove it

 

[Old Things]

So if you have an argument in how Christianity does not give meaning, let's hear it.

i have a feeling you don't even realize you just shifted from positive claim to negative claim


to ATHEIST - "prove objective morality"

to THEIST - "prove objective morality"

this is shared BoP

the exact same demand

for each side

We are not currently talking about morality, but meaning. What meaning is there for an atheist? Or should I say what ultimate meaning is there for atheism?

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

ATHEIST is not a club or an organization

doctrine

Heh.

yes, that's the point

there is no "ATHEIST doctrine"

let's just hope

EndogenousRebel​

can figure that out

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

We are not currently talking about morality, but meaning. What meaning is there for an atheist? Or should I say what ultimate meaning is there for atheism?

your vdo includes BOTH "objective meaning" and "objective morality"

 

[Old Things]

there is no "ATHEIST doctrine"

That is not at all clear from what you said. There is at least one atheist doctrine and that is that they do not believe God exists.

 

[Old Things]

We are not currently talking about morality, but meaning. What meaning is there for an atheist? Or should I say what ultimate meaning is there for atheism?

your vdo includes BOTH "objective meaning" and "objective morality"

What is the title of the video? Is objective morality mentioned? Yes, because it relates. But it is not the central focus of the video; meaning is.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

We are not currently talking about morality, but meaning. What meaning is there for an atheist? Or should I say what ultimate meaning is there for atheism?

special order just for you,

shared BoP

to ATHEIST - "prove objective meaning"

to THEIST - "prove objective meaning"

this is shared BoP

the exact same demand

for each side

 

[Old Things]

We are not currently talking about morality, but meaning. What meaning is there for an atheist? Or should I say what ultimate meaning is there for atheism?

special order just for you,

shared BoP

to ATHEIST - "prove objective meaning"

to THEIST - "prove objective meaning"

this is shared BoP

the exact same demand

for each side

I thought the video does a pretty good job of that. Inventing meaning for yourself is pretending. It is a farce. It does not actually exist if atheism is true.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

That is not at all clear from what you said. There is at least one atheist doctrine and that is that they do not believe God exists.

thats a DEFINITION

and not even an accurate one

ATHEISM is simply, NOT-A-THEIST

you might also notice that a DOCTRINE is not a DEFINITION

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

I thought the video does a pretty good job of that. Inventing meaning for yourself is pretending. It is a farce. It does not actually exist if atheism is true.

this part of the discussion is about what is MISSING from your vdo

they never address

to THEIST - "prove objective meaning"



this claim has not been demonstrated

 

[Old Things]

That is not at all clear from what you said. There is at least one atheist doctrine and that is that they do not believe God exists.

thats a DEFINITION

and not even an accurate one

ATHEISM is simply, NOT-A-THEIST

you might also notice that a DOCTRINE is not a DEFINITION

What does it mean to be "not a theist"? Does it mean you believe in God or don't believe in God? Yours is a sissy pants definition of atheism. The atheists who actually have some balls will actually commit to at least say they think it is far less probable that God exists than that He does.