Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
arakish, if you think these are the same then you must not understand the arguments. feel free to point a link of someone making the same arguments...
also people address the same topic IS NOT the same as using the same argument.
@TJump
It seems to me you are confusing "argument about a topic" with "type/form of argument style".
I can make the same type of argument style against many different topics. All arguments are naturally going to be intrinsically different. However, they can have the same "type" or "form" of style. That is how I interpreted your thread title.
Of course, your arguments are different than any I have made, at least in word choice, but NOT in "type" or "form" of style. The type and form of argument styles you are using I have already seen and used for many decades now. However, yes, you use different wording, but still the same "type" and "form" of style.
Thus, ultimately, I see no different "Best Atheist arguments you probably haven't heard before".
In all actuality, this thread would have been better titled as "Different arguments you MAY NOT have heard before".
Καταλαβαίνω τώρα
rmfr
arakish, all argument anyone ever makes are of the same types described by the rules of inference. For an argument to be unique it does not need to be a completely new type of argument.... that's nonsense.
'probably' and 'may not have' are synonymous.... (face palm)
Objective moral values do not exist if only for the reason that humans cannot be infallible determiners of what is objectively moral.
LOL... I didn't get to the actual point he made but I thought it was unusual to point out that the theist position was debunked by other theological positions. Most of the numerous alternatives to morality from God were other theologies that make the same assertion. "Morality comes from God. (Not All) As I mentioned, I would have just used Sam Harris or Matt D's "Morality from agreed upon Well Being - Secular Morality."
Yes, nothing new about the religious argument for morality or his handling of it. I don't think there are any new Christian claims.
My turn: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GP5_NQ_LEs
You still don't get it. None of your arguments are unique. Except for your wording. Your arguments are still the same I have heard and have used for many decades. Yes, your arguments are different, but only in word choice and logical flow. However, they are NOT unique. Nor are they the BEST not heard before. For me, Cognostic was making this same exact point.
And notice the inferential difference of the titles:
"Best Atheist arguments you probably haven't heard before"
versus
"Different arguments you MAY NOT have heard before"
Again, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GP5_NQ_LEs
rmfr
arakish, you just repeated the same nonsense i already proved vapid... reread the line you quoted:
"all argument[s] anyone ever makes are of the same types described by the rules of inference. For an argument to be unique it does not need to be a completely new type of argument.... that's nonsense."
So yes my argument are new argument because as you said "Yes, your arguments are different, but only in word choice and logical flow."
go away, your nonsense is not worth my time.
Tjump... do you care to give your arguments one more time so that I can understand them. I am but a layman in philosophy and logic and is like to understand without all the confusion of the other people.
@AU
In OP
rmfr
Aposteriori Unum, please explain what you don't understand so i can clarify
I was just messing with you... it's just that, not only have I heard all of this before, a long time ago but I've heard it better. I do encourage you to continue to study philosophy. And solidify your responses to theistic arguments and to sharpen your blade.
Everything you said was reasonably close to correct. Just old. And that's fine. Definitely learn the classics. I still review the classical theist arguments and their rebuttals to people.
I'll give you my specific input on the arguments only if you ask. I'm glad you took the effort, and it would be great for entry level interlocutors, but for the most part you're not talking to entry level interlocutors here. I'll send you a link to a series of well spoken, higher level stuff explained in a very simple way (for the lay philosopher) Check this out and tell me what you think.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3IOkNR8_9gpQa5teO1xQANB-3MiY17uk
Aposteriori Unum, AnticitizenX is not on my level. I have had the opportunity to talk with professional apologist and PhD philosopher on many occasions, his arguments are not remotely compelling to such people though mine have had a lot of success.
I love constructive criticism/feedback if you have some please provide it.
Oh well, then you must be at a much higher level. It's just that I thought you were just getting into this. Based on what you've said so far and your video.
"I love constructive criticism/feedback if you have some please provide it."
What would you like to know?
Aposteriori Unum, i would like to know where i can find opportunities to participate in public debates or conversations with prominent theists/apologists so i can put them on my youtube channel and demonstrate just how effective they are.
I wish I knew how to get a public debate with an apologist... if I did of also be doing it myself.
"Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.
P1 fails because there are numerous alternatives that can act as a grounds for objective moral values and duties by theist own definition, which is something grounded in a metaphysical theory of everything. For example, instead of being grounded in theism objective morality may be grounded in deism, pantheism, naturalistic pantheism (i.e. atheism), pandeism, acosmism, panpsychism, transtheism, henotheism, polytheism, pastafarianism, or an evil god, just to name a few."
These are your words. You want constructive criticism? Well, here's a few other reasons why the premise fails...
First: the argument is assuming the existence of god in the first premise. And it depends on this premise in order to make the conclusion. This is a fallacy known as begging the question. It gives no reason why, without the existence of god, that objective moral values and duties cannot exist. It's simply an assertion and one that cannot be demonstrated. The term "objective value" is nonsense. Value depends on a subjective agent doing the valuing. One may value a rock very highly and another may not. To be objective about it is nonsensical. What is the objective value of water?
That's not all, but there's a few more things you can think about and use. And that's only premise one. Let alone that premise two is also an assertion that has not been demonstrated and it uses the same nonsensical oxymoronic statement that appears in the first premise.
But, I suppose you know all this. If not, maybe you just learned something. I just think the simpler solutions such as pointing out the logical fallacies in an argument that render it asunder at the start is better than tap dancing around issues and playing their games. Point out the failures right at the start.
Anyway, the point of debate is NOT to convince the apologist, it's to expose their utter incompetence to the audience. Not by confusing the audience more with wierd tangential thoughts and confuscating rhetoric. Clear, concise exposure of logical missteps and other forms of flawed reasoning is usually much more effective.
Aposteriori Unum, The reason i am playing their games and adopting their perspective is because my goal is to convince the apologist and i have had success doing so...
@TJump
"go away, your nonsense is not worth my time."
I think your nonsense is not worth of anyone's time here.
HOW TO WIN FRIENDS AND INFLUENCE PEOPLE
@go away, your nonsense is not worth my time
I'm wondering if you think you are much better at this stuff than you think you are or perhaps you just aren't much good at communicating.
Cognostic, would you prefer I be dishonest and manipulative in order to make people feel emotionally supported this making them more accommodating to my idea... or do you think i should be honest, feelz or realz?
I prefer to simple speak my mind honestly.
No problem mate. I would prefer you actually discussed things honestly and discontinued POO POO ing people. It just makes you look bad.
Theist Argument for the Existence of god - THE MORAL ARGUMENT
The Moral Argument
Premise 1: If A, then B
Premise 2: A
Conclusion: B
Atheist Argument - "You're Wrong"
You are wrong because A, - There are more choices.
You are wrong/
I understand you are arguing. It is not an Atheist Argument. You are debunking a Christian claim. I am not confusing an argument for atheism for 'Atheist Argument." There is no argument in your Atheist Argument. I agree with other posters. The title is bizarre.
----------
Your assertion falls apart when you cite other theist claims as if they are separate from theism. 90% of the sources you cite for different opinions on the topic of morality are theists. They would have the same or very similar opinions.
Deism is a type of theism, the belief in a god who created the universe, but does not intervene in it. That does not mean morality did not come from God. Deism can swing either way.
The Deist morality may comes from looking closely at the world an inferring from this what god is telling us. (The examples you gave do not support the claim that there are other ways of coming to moral solutions.) You cite other theologies in most cases and most will agree that morality does or may come from a god. The examples are not the best.
I would use a purely secular example. Sam Harris or Matt Dillahaunty's "Secular Morality" Morality based on well being. Dillahaunty does this regularly in his shows.
The only thing New about your "Argument" ill formed as I think it may be, is that it does not work.
Naturalistic Pantheism: Naturalistic pantheism. Naturalistic pantheism is a kind of pantheism. It has been used in various ways such as to relate God or divinity with concrete things, determinism, or the substance of the Universe. God, from these perspectives, is seen as the aggregate of all unified natural phenomena. Yet you seem to be saying Atheism is a category of this Naturalistic Pantheism. I don't get that at all. And why wouldn't a Naturalistic Pantheist see God as the author of morality?
I just think your argument is weak. Not New.
Okay - I've said this over and over..... I'm done.... You get the last word..... I think I have stated my position clear enough. Cheers.
Cognostic, i am happy to honestly discuss things related to the topic... i only 'poo poo' things that are unrelated or irrelevant.
For example the definition of an argument...
or the definition of a new argument...
ot the meaning of the phrase 'atheist argument'...
none of which are relevant to my argument. If you have a different way you would have preferred these to be phrased feel free to imagine it in your own language... but i'm going to stick with english and the literal definitions provided by any source. I do not care if you agree or not, again not relevant to my argument-- hence 'go away'
You seem to have completely missed the point of the argument......
if you have a compass that you say points north, and i shake it and it points in a different random direction everytime i shake it, then the compass cant be used as a guide. It makes no difference if even north exists or not, i can still demonstrate the compass is broken. This is what i am doing with the moral argument by showing all the alternative which are like other directions the same compass (Argument) can point.
Atheist models of morality FAIL by the theist definition which is why they are not convinced by them... presenting a second compass and saying 'this compass point that way' does not show the theist compass is broken... you need to use their compass and show it can point in many different directions like what my argument does.
"relate God or divinity with concrete things, determinism, or the substance of the Universe"......... what do you call people who believe in concrete things, determinism, or the substance of the Universe is fundamental and not a supernatural being?... an atheist.
@TJump Re: Compass Example
*taking off ball cap and slapping my leg with it*.... By golly gosh-darn-it, I'm convinced! Yep, you totally sold me with that whole compass explanation, young man! Honestly can't say I TOTALLY understood it, but it sure 'nuff sounded convincin'. Hot damn!... *dancing a quick jig*... So glad you finally came along! Whoop-whoop! Can't even count how long we've all been waitin' 'round here for a feller of yer caliber to shake the rest of these lazy flea-bitten simple-minded curs from their comfortable intellectual stupors and breathe new cutting-edge knowledge back into this place. Oh, and your arrogantly dismissive attitude is sooo sublime. Highly refined to a razor sharp edge, I can tell.... *deep sigh of satisfaction*....*dreamy smile on face*... Just strolled on up in here and took over like you done own the place. Ooooo-weeee! Yes-sirreee, anybody with that sort of panache MUST be "The One."
*standing up on soap box*...Okay, all you other losers out there! Stand up and take notice! We have all been saved! Our savior TJump has arrived! He has come to drag us all from the depths of our misguided and antiquated Stone Age ways of thinking! He will shepherd us into a New Age of state-of-the-art debate methods unlike anything ever seen before! With his divine guidance we will be invincible on the field of battle! Hear me now, Brothers and Sisters! It is time to shed the moldy shells of our old brains and embrace the new teachings of TJump so that we may all be better equipped to plant the seeds of His divine logic and reason into the hearts and minds of those poor, blind theists who wander lost in their fantasy worlds!.... *jumps down off soap box*.... *drops to knees and starts bowing repeatedly*.... All hail TJump!... All praise TJump!....
Phew! Glad I finally got that off my chest. May I be dismissed now, sir?
Tin-Man, not until you pay tribute in cookies... obviously
@TJump Re: Cookies
Sorry, but Q ate all the cookies at the reception yesterday. Ummmm.... Hang on a sec....*pillaging around in the dumpster*... Let's seeeee.... Oh!...*picking out a tin can*.... Ah-ha! Hey, how about half a can of diced pears? I'm pretty sure I can get most of the mold off of them.
@ TM
I reckon we should arrange a bare knuckle debate with John "the Killer BreezY" and T Jump. I reckon with their ,mutual and overpowering arrogance it would be a death match ..quick print some tickets...Q...go knock up Breezy, he will be in church and get him here...T Jump hang around, drink some water..here is some fresh meat on its way...unless he avoids you...he does that. Suchi? Can you organise the seating plan please? Cog, if you could be T jumps second, you fan him, hit him with the bucket...Breezy wont need a second hes so slippery a he will be behind himself every couple of seconds...and they are REAAAADYYYYYYY TO RUUUUUUUUMMMMMMMMMBBBBBBBLE.....Arakish...you're good with figures can you keep the book?
@Old Man
*jumping up and down excitedly with raised hand*....Oo-oo-oo! Can I be ring announcer? Can I, huh, can I?
@Old Man
Not a problem. **peels off a dead piece of bark and a twig and begins making marks**
rmfr
"it would be a death match"
i know right....told yah..it'll be a good fight...this is the match of the century for AR folks...
"quick print some tickets...Q...go knock up Breezy"
i used this fishing net just to carry breezy...no doubt he's really to slippery..and smells too...
and ohh..i already got the tickets....and its sold out....
i think it would be good if we can put michael, in..and FIG..with RT...you want me to get them?
your call old man......
Cognostic,
most of the moral arguements ive heard are basically this:
1)If not A then not B
2)B
3)Therefore A
It's modus tollens, which in mathematics is valid, but in informal logic it's usually rejected as invalid because the fact that B is true does not imply, necessarily, that A is true.
(Just a friendly fun fact for ya. I notices your example syllogism was a bit different than what I'm used to hearing apologists use. You gave an example of modus ponens)
I see what I did. My mistake. Thanks.
Pages