What's the strongest argument for atheism?

[ZenRaiden]

Then it is not really useful to discuss.

I mean I cannot force you to discuss it, but you legit made the assertion.
Without that I see lots of assertions.

 

[Old Things]

Then it is not really useful to discuss.

I mean I cannot force you to discuss it, but you legit made the assertion.
Without that I see lots of assertions.

Yeah, but if you don't even know what you mean by a word it's impossible for me to make any kind of argument at all. I can tell you how the word has generally been used, but you are skeptical of that. So the question, "Why is believing in spirits (not) compatible with atheism?" is an undefined discussion since you don't know what a spirit is.

 

[ZenRaiden]

So the question, "Why is believing in spirits (not) compatible with atheism?" is an undefined discussion since you don't know what a spirit is.

Right I already told you what it is.

 

[Old Things]

So the question, "Why is believing in spirits (not) compatible with atheism?" is an undefined discussion since you don't know what a spirit is.

Right I already told you what it is.

Which is why I asked a follow-up question about how the word is typically understood. So your definition is A-typical or undefined. Because if a spirit is some natural phenomenon that animates the body rather than supernatural, then I suppose according to that definition you could still be an atheist and believe in spirits. But anyone can come up with any definition of any word they want. It just makes having a discussion about anything involving that word impossible.

 

[ZenRaiden]

But anyone can come up with any definition of any word they want.

Sure, but what then makes the right definition of a thing?
We probably don't disagree on many words if we are talking.
Why would you not agree with my definition of spirit?

 

[Old Things]

Why would you not agree with my definition of spirit?

Because it is a non-physical thing that animates physical stuff according to you. So not calling it supernatural seems weird. Seems to be you view it as a force? But then what are the characteristics of this force? And is the force the actual person, or just some undefined immaterial thing like a number?

 

[Black Rose]

I think that I have a spirit.

so some part of me is supernatural

whereas a non-spirit can't feel anything

A source of spirit may exist as the God of all

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Spirit comes from Latin I think, synonymous with German's geist?

I think Germans are the ones that took that meaning and turned it into something psychological.

Something that Europeans are more familier with?

Literally sometimes it just comes down to cultural barriers.

That is unless you want to get into a debate about people using Old English and proto German languages were actually referring to ghosts instead of just having a less robust way to differentiate things.

 

[EndogenousRebel]

Either way I think you can agree to disagree and just say that soul and spirit are different things. Soul is more supernatural, and spiritual is more.. natural.

 

[Old Things]

Spirit comes from Latin I think, synonymous with German's geist?

I think Germans are the ones that took that meaning and turned it into something psychological.

Something that Europeans are more familier with?

Literally sometimes it just comes down to cultural barriers.

That is unless you want to get into a debate about people using Old English and proto German languages were actually referring to ghosts instead of just having a less robust way to differentiate things.

The second verse of the Bible has the word Spirit in it.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Because it is a non-physical thing that animates physical stuff according to you.

Why is this important?

So not calling it supernatural seems weird.

Words are irrelevant labels. Its the meaning behind words that is important. Super anything is just redundant word.

Seems to be you view it as a force?

Some people do, I don't.

But then what are the characteristics of this force?

Depends, I believe in rearranges energy.

And is the force the actual person, or just some undefined immaterial thing like a number?

Depends who you ask. Personally I think partly yes.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

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).

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)

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Yeah, but if you don't even know what you mean by a word it's impossible for me to make any kind of argument at all.

STEP ONE: DEFINE TERMS

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

whereas a non-spirit can't feel anything

spider ghost

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

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

Why is self-identification meaningful?

why do you call yourself a "christian" ?

categories are demonstrably useful but not necessarily "meaningful"

"meaningfulness" is inherently personal

for example

an experience may be deeply meaningful to me

that is NOT deeply meaningful to you


self-identification is each person's right

it is fundamental

you and only you can choose to self-identify as a christian

you and only you can choose to self-identify as a communist



of course, you can be accused of being a witch

but if you don't personally self-identify as a witch


then some outside force is trying to

impose a label on you which you did not choose


and this is a clear violation of your right to self-identify

 

[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?

why do you call yourself a "christian" ?

categories are demonstrably useful but not necessarily "meaningful"

"meaningfulness" is inherently personal

for example

an experience may be deeply meaningful to me

that is NOT deeply meaningful to you


self-identification is each person's right

it is fundamental

you and only you can choose to self-identify as a christian

you and only you can choose to self-identify as a communist



of course, you can be accused of being a witch

but if you don't personally self-identify as a witch


then some outside force is trying to

impose a label on you which you did not choose


and this is a clear violation of your right to self-identify

I did not ask you how you know self-identification is meaningful, or how it is meaningful, I asked, "Why?" it is meaningful.

You've basically just said that self-identification is meaningful because it is self-evident. But that is not the question. The question is why we should think self-identification is meaningful? What is the underpinning thing that we know this is true? Why does it matter? Not that it does matter as we all know it does. But why does it matter?

 

[Old Things]

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

No, I am not "Unconvinced" I do NOT believe in big foot (or whatever you are saying).

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

I could give an argument and that makes all the difference in the world.

are you perhaps "not-an-astronaut" ?

"Not a" is not a self-identifying feature. It is a negation of a feature.

are you perhaps "not-a-hippie" ?

You could probably classify me as a hippie in some way.

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

I would not need to "fabricate" an argument, but I could make one.

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)

I don't care about stamps. Besides, saying I am not a stamp collector is meaningless. It's like you are trying to say most people are "not-a-theist" or something, but that is wrong. More people do believe in God than don't so there is a huge difference. One is a metaphysical claim, one is something you do. Totally different things.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

The question is why we should think self-identification is meaningful?

ok

some people have a sense of identity

and for those people

their identity is intrinsically important

if you are not one of these people

you probably don't understand


maybe this can only be approached as an individual

do you have a sense of identity ?

do you think your own identity is intrinsically important and meaningful ?

why ?

why-because you personally base your interactions and emotions on how your sense of self interfaces with the sense of self of those people you encounter

you probably don't like to be misidentified

i mean

you probably don't want to be called a communist if you are not self-identified as a communist

this seems like it should be obvious to anyone who has a sense-of-self

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

No, I am not "Unconvinced" I do NOT believe in big foot (or whatever you are saying).

is this a claim that bigfoot is DEFINITELY not real and has never been real ?

 

[Old Things]

intrinsically

Yes, I agree. That is not the question. The question is why?

is this a claim that bigfoot is DEFINITELY not real and has never been real ?

I do not need to have cartesian certainty to believe that Big Foot does not exist. I just have to be perhaps 60% or more sure that he does not. If I was 41%-59% sure, I would be agnostic. But I am more sure than that.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

I do not need to have cartesian certainty to believe that Big Foot does not exist. I just have to be perhaps 60% or more sure that he does not. If I was 41%-59% sure, I would be agnostic. But I am more sure than that.

do you believe this standard of evidence applies to ATHEISM ?

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Yes, I agree. That is not the question. The question is why?

why-because you personally base your interactions and emotions on how your sense of self interfaces with the sense of self of those people you encounter

 

[Old Things]

I do not need to have cartesian certainty to believe that Big Foot does not exist. I just have to be perhaps 60% or more sure that he does not. If I was 41%-59% sure, I would be agnostic. But I am more sure than that.

do you believe this standard of evidence applies to ATHEISM ?

Yes, of course! Why wouldn't it? That is what we are talking about when we are talking about epistemics.

Yes, I agree. That is not the question. The question is why?

why-because you personally base your interactions and emotions on how your sense of self interfaces with the sense of self of those people you encounter

So? Why is that important? There is no deeper grounding you have than just de facto because it's important. It is a brute fact to you. Therein lies the problem.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Men will wrangle for religion; write for it; fight for it; die
for it; any thing but—live for it.
—CHARLES CALEB COLTON

 

[ZenRaiden]

Every other sect suppos[es] itself in possession of all
truth, and that those who differ are so far in the wrong;
like a man traveling in foggy weather, those at some dis-
tance before him on the road he sees wrapped up in the
fog, as well as those behind him, and also the people in
the fields on each side, but near him all appears clear,
tho' in truth he is as much in the fog as any of them.
— B E N J A M I N F R A N K L I N

 

[ZenRaiden]

I want nothing to do with any religion concerned with
keeping the masses satisfied to live in hunger, filth and
ignorance. I want nothing to do with any order, religious
or otherwise, which does not teach people that they are
capable of becoming happier and more civilized, on this
earth, capable of becoming true man, master of his fate
and captain of his soul.
—JAWAHARLAL N E H R U

 

[ZenRaiden]

The need for religion will end when man becomes sen-
sible enough to govern himself.
—FRANCISCO FERRER GUARDIA

 

[ZenRaiden]

If this is your God, he's not very impressive. He has so
many psychological problems; he's so insecure. He de-
mands worship every seven days. He goes out and creates
faulty humans and then blames them for his own mis-
takes. He's a pretty poor excuse for a Supreme Being.
—GENE RODDENBERRY

 

[ZenRaiden]

If there were not God, there would be no atheists.
—G. K. CHESTERTON

 

[ZenRaiden]

God bless those pagans.
—HOMER SIMPSON

 

[Old Things]

If this is your God, he's not very impressive. He has so
many psychological problems; he's so insecure. He de-
mands worship every seven days. He goes out and creates
faulty humans and then blames them for his own mis-
takes. He's a pretty poor excuse for a Supreme Being.
—GENE RODDENBERRY

I read Exodus 29 today. There was this verse that I took note of.

Exodus 29:37
"For seven days you must make atonement for the altar and consecrate it. The altar will be especially holy. Whatever touches the altar will be consecrated."

This was all done in preparation for worshipping God. It required all these steps because God is a Holy God. However a person might imagine God to be, God is greater than that. What this person said shows a lack of understanding of God's character because God is not just like a human except more powerful. He is good through and through. He has a holiness that man cannot touch and cannot understand. Human categories will not work with Him.

 

[ZenRaiden]

If God created us in his own image, we have more than
reciprocated

 

[Old Things]

If God created us in his own image, we have more than
reciprocated

That assumes you know what it means to be made in the image of God. So what is the way you see it that makes you say that?

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

If there were not God, there would be no atheists.
—G. K. CHESTERTON

well, a THEISTIC god anyway


there is absolutely zero reason to complain about a DEISTIC god


because they're not running around demanding obedience

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

That assumes you know what it means to be made in the image of God. So what is the way you see it that makes you say that?

how many different versions of god have humans written about ?


at least a few thousand


and to be clear

i'm just asking for your personal opinion on this next part


how many of those thousands of gods

were created out of pure human imagination ?

 

[Old Things]

were created out of pure human imagination ?

I don't think they come from human imagination. People have an inherent belief in god or gods. How I explain things like polytheism is that they do believe in gods, they are just demons rather than actually gods.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

I don't think they come from human imagination. People have an inherent belief in god or gods. How I explain things like polytheism is that they do believe in gods, they are just demons rather than actually gods.

ok, all "false religions" are the result of "demonic inspiration"

what about "false doctrine" that splits the christian church

and i'm not talking about the casual stuff

i'm talking about the stuff that inspires catholics to slaughter protestants

is this "false doctrine" also the result of manifest "demonic inspiration" ?

 

[Old Things]

is this "false doctrine" also the result of manifest "demonic inspiration" ?

It could be.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

is this "false doctrine" also the result of manifest "demonic inspiration" ?

It could be.

interesting hypothesis

i've never imagined that demons spoke to humans more often and managed to spread their ideas better than YHWH

 

[Old Things]

is this "false doctrine" also the result of manifest "demonic inspiration" ?

It could be.

interesting hypothesis

i've never imagined that demons spoke to humans more often and managed to spread their ideas better than YHWH

The Old Testament is all about YHWH being the one true God. How you get demons out of that is perplexing.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

The Old Testament is all about YHWH being the one true God. How you get demons out of that is perplexing.

well, it seems reasonable to look at the pentateuch as a record of regional god ideas competing for dominance

god ideas

that sprung forth from human imaginations

 

[Old Things]

that sprung forth from human imaginations

That's fine if you assume that. But it's just an assumption.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

That's fine if you assume that. But it's just an assumption.

do you believe the mormon doctrine is inspired by demons ?

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

The Old Testament is all about YHWH being the one true God.

in the old testament it mentions a lot of other gods

each tribe seems to have its own gods

and the argument seems to be that YHWH is "more powerful" than the other tribal gods

 

[Old Things]

That's fine if you assume that. But it's just an assumption.

do you believe the mormon doctrine is inspired by demons ?

Probably, but I don't know for sure.

each tribe seems to have its own gods

Each tribe of Israel had their own gods? I'm going to need a verse for that.

 

[Old Things]

BTW, @LOGICZOMBIE it's easy to do a search to see what in the Bible is contradictory. But I doubt you would be able to reach many of the problems you have with Christianity without the help of Google.

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

Each tribe of Israel had their own gods? I'm going to need a verse for that.

the egyptians had some gods

the amalekites had some gods

the philistines had some gods

the moabites had some gods

the edomites had some gods

the ammonites had some gods

 

[LOGICZOMBIE]

BTW, @LOGICZOMBIE it's easy to do a search to see what in the Bible is contradictory. But I doubt you would be able to reach many of the problems you have with Christianity without the help of Google.

i'm not sure that counts as an argument


i was about nine years old when i figured out that noah's ark didn't make any sense