The guide to arguing with the religious mental midgets on here

[Field Marshall Bradley]

Capitalism, Marxism, Communism, Democracy, Socialism, and a few more.

That's off the top of my head, though. I could get a tad more in-depth, but that'd be an entirely different thread.
​

Thank you my brother....and quite frankly....These answers appear to be hiding in plain sight.....The media can brainwash you in 20 seconds or less...

 

[GZR]

I hate this p*ssy assed retort from people.

Why is it only atheists have to neuter their comments?

Mind you, I started this thread to GIVE people a tool and to point out a flawed argument. If people caught feelings, thats THEIR problem.

I don't neuter my comments, if someone asks me if I'm religious I say "No, I'm an atheist" and keep it moving. I don't feel the need to ram it down people's throats. I've seen you in so many threads harping on about religion and it's become clear that you enjoy condescension towards religious people and have a holier than thou attitude (forgive the pun).

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

False.

The burden of proof is on the person asserting the claim.

That's fine. My assertion is that 'God' is a cognitively incoherent term and most 'religious' language makes no sense. That's what 'theological noncognitivism' is.

NONE of my arguments are theistic. It just so happens that an argument against your particular form of atheism has theistic elements, but is built on solid logic and evidence......things your arguments lack.

You're just hiding behind 'lack of belief' because you can't even define what it is you don't believe exists so, resort to using 'straw man' arguments that render your entire stance illogical.

You CAN prove a negative. You neither understand logical arguments, nor possess enough information about the subject of your derision to do so.

'Atheism' means nothing. It's been thoroughly obfuscated to the point it applies to inanimate/inorganic/unconscious entities like chairs, rocks and amoebas.
​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Cool. In the mean time, I'm off, too.

Found it.....

Dude pretty much blamed the fall of Rome on Christianity and atheists/religious skeptics have been running with it ever since the 18th century......even though historians regard that theory as biased and incorrect. Still, he's regarded as one of the best historians in regards to Roman history so his work retains some merit due to his use of primary sources.
​

 

[observe]

That's fine. My assertion is that 'God' is a cognitively incoherent term and most 'religious' language makes no sense. That's what 'theological noncognitivism' is.

NONE of my arguments are theistic. It just so happens that an argument against your particular form of atheism has theistic elements, but is built on solid logic and evidence......things your arguments lack.

You're just hiding behind 'lack of belief' because you can't even define what it is you don't believe exists so, resort to using 'straw man' arguments that render your entire stance illogical.

You CAN prove a negative. You neither understand logical arguments, nor possess enough information about the subject of your derision to do so.

'Atheism' means nothing. It's been thoroughly obfuscated to the point it applies to inanimate/inorganic/unconscious entities like chairs, rocks and amoebas.
​

That's why I'm funk docs number 1 fan on the coli

 

[YoungMasterGold]

Found it.....

Dude pretty much blamed the fall of Rome on Christianity and atheists/religious skeptics have been running with it ever since the 18th century......even though historians regard that theory as biased and incorrect. Still, he's regarded as one of the best historians in regards to Roman history so his work retains some merit due to his use of primary sources.
​

I don't see how that supports the claim that "Atheists 'made up' the Dark Ages." Gibbons' strange meandering into opinion has little to do with your assertion.

 

[Non Sequitur]

Well, there does seem to be an abundance of delicious cookies in hell. Join us. Think of the caramel chocolate cookie.

No way

 

[YoungMasterGold]

That's fine. My assertion is that 'God' is a cognitively incoherent term and most 'religious' language makes no sense. That's what 'theological noncognitivism' is.

NONE of my arguments are theistic. It just so happens that an argument against your particular form of atheism has theistic elements, but is built on solid logic and evidence......things your arguments lack.

You're just hiding behind 'lack of belief' because you can't even define what it is you don't believe exists so, resort to using 'straw man' arguments that render your entire stance illogical.

You CAN prove a negative. You neither understand logical arguments, nor possess enough information about the subject of your derision to do so.

'Atheism' means nothing. It's been thoroughly obfuscated to the point it applies to inanimate/inorganic/unconscious entities like chairs, rocks and amoebas.​

​

I'm not necessarily arguing with your conception of a non-conceptualisable deity, but I think it's fair to state that most theists do insist on defining and arguing for their gods. Those arguments are generally based on recognisable characteristics .It is those characteristics most atheists attempt to refute, or, at the very least, disbelieve. I think that it's also safe to say that linguistically incoherent deities probably form a basis for disbelief in gods, so I definitely agree that your arguments won't be theistic.

In any case, what's a solid logical argument - with evidence - for a cognitively incoherent god?

On a final note, I'd argue that if atheism has become so wide a term as to encompass all those things, it's probably as a result of theists defining their gods into meaningless generalities.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

I don't see how that supports the claim that "Atheists 'made up' the Dark Ages." Gibbons' strange meandering into opinion has little to do with your assertion.

Read Chapters 15 and 16. That formed the 'meat' of most of the arguments. His criticism of Christianity's role during the Middle Ages is pretty much the basis for all the arguments you hear now.

I've even encountered a couple individuals that specifically stated the fall of Rome was directly attributable to religion. All I could do was shake my head at the ignorance and KIM.

Hell, look at the post directly below this one. That's word-for-word Gibbons' argument.
​

 

[360crazy]

Religion keeps the sheep deluded and unaware of reality. It breeds complacency, ignorance and an overall bad effect on a society that's trying to progress. That is reason enough to be condescending and intolerant towards the people who support it.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

I'm not necessarily arguing with your conception of a non-conceptualisable deity, but I think it's fair to state that most theists do insist on defining and arguing for their gods. Those arguments are generally based on recognisable characteristics .It is those characteristics most atheists attempt to refute, or, at the very least, disbelieve. I think that it's also safe to say that linguistically incoherent deities probably form a basis for disbelief in gods, so I definitely agree that your arguments won't be theistic.​

​

The issue is that the characteristics are all secondary and tertiary. None of them are Primary. We have no idea what this entity 'is'. So, someone could say it is brown, tall, smells like strawberries, etc., but what are these characteristics being applied to?​

In any case, what's a solid logical argument - with evidence - for a cognitively incoherent god?

Depends on the theist's description of what it is they are arguing for the existence of. This is why you can't use a broad brush to dismiss their claims.​

On a final note, I'd argue that if atheism has become so wide a term as to encompass all those things, it's probably as a result of theists defining their gods into meaningless generalities.

It has more to do with Antony Flew than anything else since he's the one that came up with it, IIRC, based on the 'presumption of atheism'. It boils down to the difference between stating 'I believe there is no God', and 'I don't believe there is a God'.
​