What's the strongest argument for atheism?

[Old Things]

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

Yes, they do. It is at the end of the video.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

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.

it links "meaning" to "morality"

suggesting that "meaning" is a contingent of "morality"

 

[Old Things]

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.

it links "meaning" to "morality"

suggesting that "meaning" is a contingent of "morality"

No. Turn those around. Without meaning, there is no objective morality.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

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

I suppose the utilitarian just believes a random set of things and don't share beliefs?

I suppose the pragmatists just believe a random set of things and don't have shared beliefs?

I suppose the pessimist believes a random set of things and don't have shared beliefs?

What a joke.


All you're doing is really exposing the fact that people that identify with certain beliefs can evade accountability if there is a lack of a "authoritative text" for their belief system.

I can manufacture a scenario where Yahweh is a entity from the future that gained omnipotence at the end of time and therefore became omnipresent, thus I could still be atheist because really it just comes down to semantic definitions of what is a God and what is a a manufactured sci-fi creation.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

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.

are you expecting anyone to respond to your heckling ?


look


this is how this works


i don't get to dictate to christians "what christians believe"


because people who call themselves christians get to figure that out

if i want to know, i'll ASK A CHRISTIAN



and you don't get to dictate to atheists "what atheists believe"


because people who call themselves atheists get to figure that out

if you want to know, you can ASK AN ATHEIST



self identification is fundamental

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

No. Turn those around. Without meaning, there is no objective morality.

works in both directions

just pick one

and prove it

either one

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

I suppose the utilitarian just believes a random set of things and don't share beliefs?

have you ever been in a room full of libertarians ?


hell


have you ever been in a room full of christians of different denominations ?

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

All you're doing is really exposing the fact that people that identify with certain beliefs can evade accountability if there is a lack of a "authoritative text" for their belief system.

self identification is fundamental

just because someone believes something you don't like doesn't mean they're "evading" you or whatever motive you wish to project at that particular moment

i'm sure they don't have to ask your permission to form a belief (or to NOT form a belief)

 

[EndogenousRebel]

I suppose the utilitarian just believes a random set of things and don't share beliefs?

have you ever been in a room full of libertarians ?


hell


have you ever been in a room full of christians of different denominations ?

We were talking about plausibility in the coherency that an atheist has over a Christian. Not sure what you're talking about. This conversation is over

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Yes, they do. It is at the end of the video.

ok, what do they say exactly ?

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

We were talking about plausibility in the coherency that an atheist has over a Christian. Not sure what you're talking about. This conversation is over

you're the one who wanted to talk about what utilitarians believe

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

because really it just comes down to semantic definitions

this is why communication is nearly impossible

if you fail to define your terms rigorously

 

[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.

This was my response to what you wrote about atheism and the afterlife...

I guess atheist can believe in aliens and sci-fi, so there's that, but an afterlife implicitly implies spirituality, which opens the door to theism, which atheists would deny.

You need to check the rigor of your definitions and terms.

 

[Old Things]

No. Turn those around. Without meaning, there is no objective morality.

works in both directions

just pick one

and prove it

either one

How about you just tell me what is the strongest argument for atheism instead?

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

I guess atheist can believe in aliens and sci-fi, so there's that, but an afterlife implicitly implies spirituality, which opens the door to theism, which atheists would deny.

"spirituality" does not demand "THEISM"

but don't take my word for it

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

 

[EndogenousRebel]

I guess atheist can believe in aliens and sci-fi, so there's that, but an afterlife implicitly implies spirituality, which opens the door to theism, which atheists would deny.

"spirituality" does not demand "THEISM"

but don't take my word for it

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

I won't

 

[Old Things]

I guess atheist can believe in aliens and sci-fi, so there's that, but an afterlife implicitly implies spirituality, which opens the door to theism, which atheists would deny.

"spirituality" does not demand "THEISM"

but don't take my word for it

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

Wait just a gall dang minute, bro. You are quoting what an atheist believes. So why is it off-limits for Dr. Craig to quote prominent intellectual atheists? Kinda a double standard, don't you think?

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

How about you just tell me what is the strongest argument for atheism instead?

that's what's called "shifting the burden of proof"

look

just because you pit two ideas against each other

doesn't mean that if one fails to produce the result you're looking for

that the other gets a "free win"


ATHEISM makes no claim of "objective meaning" or "objective morality"

THEISM on the other hand DOES make a claim of "objective meaning" and "objective morality"



ATHEISM has nothing to prove here

THEISM does have something to prove here

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

I won't

arguing in bad faith is like having a conversation with yourself

 

[Old Things]

ATHEISM has nothing to prove here

Well, I mean, you made the thread and titled it what you did. So I guess you have no interest in your own thread now?

 

[Old Things]

I'd like to hear any strong arguments you might have for atheism.

All I can say is that you are a very sloppy thinker and people should not take your views seriously if this is how you are going to respond to your own dang inquiry.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Wait just a gall dang minute, bro. You are quoting what an atheist believes. So why is it off-limits for Dr. Craig to quote prominent intellectual atheists? Kinda a double standard, don't you think?

i'm providing an example of an atheist who believes in reincarnation

any RANDOM atheist will prove the point

this is not an "appeal to authority"

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Well, I mean, you made the thread and titled it what you did. So I guess you have no interest in your own thread now?

do you wish to submit your proposal for "the strongest argument for atheism" ?


please feel free



i'm simply following your lead


if you want to move the goalposts to "the strongest argument AGAINST atheism"


i'm more than happy to play along



it's called INTP FORUM for a reason

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

All I can say is that you are a very sloppy thinker and people should not take your views seriously if this is how you are going to respond to your own dang inquiry.

please be slightly more specific

 

[Old Things]

you said though experience was about ideas being correct or incorrect.

If you mean we get our ideas from our experiences then I would agree with that. But I also believe that our experiences can be misunderstood. I don't know what exactly you are talking about so if you could quote me where I said that, I'd like to see my own words I said.

 

[Old Things]

do you wish to submit your proposal for "the strongest argument for atheism" ?

The strongest argument for atheism is determinism and/or fatalism which are philosophical assumptions.

Now you answer your own dang question, please.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

I won't

arguing in bad faith is like having a conversation with yourself

It doesn't necessarily even feel like you're trying to be bad faith, you're just moving the parameters of the conversation to where you're comfortable constantly, something I'm not interested in following the tangent of.

 

[Old Things]

I won't

arguing in bad faith is like having a conversation with yourself

It doesn't necessarily even feel like you're trying to be bad faith, you're just moving the parameters of the conversation to where you're comfortable constantly, something I'm not interested in following the tangent of.

Yes, I have noticed him doing the same thing before. He tends to add red herrings to the conversation a lot.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

How about you just tell me what is the strongest argument for atheism instead?

there is no argument required to be unconvinced

are you perhaps unconvinced of the claim that bigfootspacealienslochnessmonster is real ?

do you feel compelled to fabricate an argument defending your (presumed) non-belief in bigfootspacealienslochnessmonster ?


are you perhaps "not-an-astronaut" ?

are you perhaps "not-a-dinosaur" ?

are you perhaps "not-a-hippie" ?


do you feel compelled to fabricate an argument defending your lack of self-identifying as one of these labels ?

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

It doesn't necessarily even feel like you're trying to be bad faith, you're just moving the parameters of the conversation to where you're comfortable constantly, something I'm not interested in following the tangent of.

i'm only responding to your own words and i'm willing to take you at your word

of course i will question what you say to make sure we're communicating clearly

but if you refuse to believe that atheists can also believe in spirits

without presenting any formal objections or supporting counter-claims

then you are the one arguing in bad faith

 

[Old Things]

do you feel compelled to fabricate an argument defending your lack of self-identifying as one of these labels ?

How do I even know YOU exist?

 

[Old Things]

It doesn't necessarily even feel like you're trying to be bad faith, you're just moving the parameters of the conversation to where you're comfortable constantly, something I'm not interested in following the tangent of.

i'm only responding to your own words and i'm willing to take you at your word

of course i will question what you say to make sure we're communicating clearly

but if you refuse to believe that atheists can also believe in spirits

without presenting any formal objections or supporting counter-claims

then you are the one arguing in bad faith

There is zero point in calling yourself an atheist if you believe in spirits. You could very well call yourself spiritual but not religious or whatever. There are much better gloves that would fit in that situation than atheist.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

The strongest argument for atheism is determinism and/or fatalism which are philosophical assumptions.

calvinism is compatible with determinism (predeterminism even)

calvinists are THEISTS

so

perhaps not the strongest support for atheism

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

There is zero point in calling yourself an atheist if you believe in spirits.

i'm pretty sure self-identification is fundamental

 

[Old Things]

perhaps not the strongest support for atheism

That is because there is no good argument for atheism, meaning you don't believe in God or gods. "I'm not convinced" is honestly just stupid. You can say that about literally anything. "I am not convinced that the earth is a sphere," or whatever else.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Yes, I have noticed him doing the same thing before. He tends to add red herrings to the conversation a lot.

i already pointed out that i was responding directly to the comment about utilitarians

 

[Old Things]

There is zero point in calling yourself an atheist if you believe in spirits.

i'm pretty sure self-identification is fundamental

Everyone can play pretend, but playing in the sandbox of metaphysics and just shooting down every argument is not really any kind of self-identification.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

That is because there is no good argument for atheism, meaning you don't believe in God or gods. "I'm not convinced" is honestly just stupid. You can say that about literally anything. "I am not convinced that the earth is a sphere," or whatever else.

it seems almost like the burden of proof naturally falls

on the individual making the positive claim

 

[ZenRaiden]

There are much better gloves that would fit in that situation than atheist.

Please walk me through your logic that SPIRIT = GOD belief?

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Everyone can play pretend, but playing in the sandbox of metaphysics and just shooting down every argument is not really any kind of self-identification.

do you honestly believe that i'm pretending when i tell you that i'm NOT a THEIST ?

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

How do I even know YOU exist?

GREAT QUESTION

why don't you walk me through your logic

step by step

 

[Old Things]

There are much better gloves that would fit in that situation than atheist.

Please walk me through your logic that SPIRIT = GOD belief?

What is a spirit? What do spirits do?

Everyone can play pretend, but playing in the sandbox of metaphysics and just shooting down every argument is not really any kind of self-identification.

do you honestly believe that i'm pretending when i tell you that i'm NOT a THEIST ?

I think you are deluding yourself. Yes.

 

[Old Things]

How do I even know YOU exist?

GREAT QUESTION

why don't you walk me through your logic

step by step

You've engaged in a way that tells me you are probably too sophisticated to be a bot. You also have a unique personality and some oddities about your personality. So I assume you are a real person until proven otherwise.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Now you answer your own dang question, please.

What's the strongest argument for atheism?

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...

www.intpforum.com

 

[ZenRaiden]

What is a spirit? What do spirits do?

Spirit animates the inanimate.
Things that have no spirit therefore don't have capacity to be sentient.

 

[Old Things]

What is a spirit? What do spirits do?

Spirit animates the inanimate.
Things that have no spirit therefore don't have capacity to be sentient.

So would you say spirits are supernatural? That is typically how they are understood, at least.

 

[Old Things]

Now you answer your own dang question, please.

What's the strongest argument for atheism?

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...

www.intpforum.com

Questions are not arguments. A question needs an answer. If you don't answer the question, it cannot be used as an argument (unless it is a hypothetical question in which the answer is obvious).

 

[ZenRaiden]

So would you say spirits are supernatural? That is typically how they are understood, at least.

Might be I don't know.

 

[Old Things]

So would you say spirits are supernatural? That is typically how they are understood, at least.

Might be I don't know.

Then it is not really useful to discuss.

 

[Old Things]

do you feel compelled to fabricate an argument defending your lack of self-identifying as one of these labels ?

Why is self-identification meaningful?