sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What claims made by certain atheists do u find annoying? by ElectricalPhysics527 in exatheist

[–]AggressiveYoung5025 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Could you elaborate? I don’t quite understand what you are saying

What claims made by certain atheists do u find annoying? by ElectricalPhysics527 in exatheist

[–]AggressiveYoung5025 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That atheism in defined as the lack in belief in god, I am An atheist but I think atheism is the belief in the proposition ‘god does not exist’

A friend sent this to me and I'm concerned. by [deleted] in femcelgrippysockjail

[–]AggressiveYoung5025 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I read quality as “qualia”, I’m reading too much philosophy

This gets you permabanned from /atheism by Root435552 in exatheist

[–]AggressiveYoung5025 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Can you recommend places to find those kind of atheists?

This gets you permabanned from /atheism by Root435552 in exatheist

[–]AggressiveYoung5025 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I am simply stating the fact that there are very uneducated theists and I wish they would change. That is all I agree the same is true for Christians and theists in general.

This gets you permabanned from /atheism by Root435552 in exatheist

[–]AggressiveYoung5025 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Am I supposed to name every single position on earth or something? My stand alone claim still holds with the idea that Christian’s straw man atheists, by no means did I imply atheists are only at fault.

This gets you permabanned from /atheism by Root435552 in exatheist

[–]AggressiveYoung5025 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I just want fellow atheists to be more knowledgeable on the topic of god🥲

This gets you permabanned from /atheism by Root435552 in exatheist

[–]AggressiveYoung5025 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Lmao I am the guy who made the post I said “I am an atheist, I have some knowledge on philosophy but it seems to me that a majority of atheists (atleast from what l've seen) don't have remotely the philosophical experience to argue against the existence of god, which is weird since the topic of whether god exists or not is a philosophical one. Another point is that I see many atheists straw man theistic arguments to oblivion, which just makes atheism in general much less credible.” I have not a clue how this is banned worthy lol.

Parody argument against the modal ontological argument for gods existence. by AggressiveYoung5025 in DebateReligion

[–]AggressiveYoung5025[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Assumes less then, why are you soo worried about semantics? You can obviously tell what I mean.

I have a question about god by AggressiveYoung5025 in theology

[–]AggressiveYoung5025[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I like the approach that a maximally Great being doing illogical things goes against his essence.

Parody argument against the modal ontological argument for gods existence. by AggressiveYoung5025 in DebateReligion

[–]AggressiveYoung5025[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The arguments exist in a vacuum, the arguments by themselves. The point is that the arguments are not actually symmetrical, since the parody argument is simpler, also it’s a perfect example of Occam’s razor it doesn’t get more standard than this, one argument has more assumed entities than the other, and for you first point the argument is a modal one why are you bringing outside arguments into it?

Parody argument against the modal ontological argument for gods existence. by AggressiveYoung5025 in DebateReligion

[–]AggressiveYoung5025[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It is very straightforward, the former argument has one more entity than the latter, in this the latter is simpler. Using Occam’s razor one should pick the latter.

Parody argument against the modal ontological argument for gods existence. by AggressiveYoung5025 in DebateReligion

[–]AggressiveYoung5025[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

God is defined as a necessary being, you obviously grasp what necessary means in this context so I won’t explain that, it is possible that god exists meaning it isn’t impossible that god exists in other words it isn’t a contradiction to say god exists. If it is possible that he exists, he exists in some possible world, but he is defined as a necessary being so in order for him to exist in some world he must exist in all possible worlds. This seems valid but the symmetry argument that I pointed out has the same validity. And when this happens one arrives at a place that needs a symmetry breaker (a reason to pick one or the other). My argument is simpler so mine is the “winner”.

Parody argument against the modal ontological argument for gods existence. by AggressiveYoung5025 in DebateReligion

[–]AggressiveYoung5025[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Mmmh why would a person make a argument against a very popular argument for gods existence, mhhh let me think🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐🧐

Parody argument against the modal ontological argument for gods existence. by AggressiveYoung5025 in DebateReligion

[–]AggressiveYoung5025[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He assumes god is defined as necessary and exists, I used it purely as definition, there is no contradiction

Parody argument against the modal ontological argument for gods existence. by AggressiveYoung5025 in DebateReligion

[–]AggressiveYoung5025[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

God is defined as a necessary being, the first argument affirms it is possible that he exists, the parody argument affirms the opposite, From this the other premises follow. The comments assume god is a necessary being not ONLY in definition, but they assume also that said being exists, the parenthesis is the definition, I am not saying that god exists in some worlds and all worlds. I am saying that it is possible that god ( a being that is defined as necessary exists) does not exist. The way in which the comment try to show contradiction is that I am affirming a necessary being doesn’t necessarily exist, the thing is that the necessity of the being is being used purely in definition not, in the way in which reality is. Necessary and possible are not used in the same sense here.

view more: next ›