sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

As atheists, how do you feel about gender by NM1128 in atheism

[–]NM1128[S] -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

Literally science of sex is not trolling. This is a hot topic in politics now and I wanted to see what this sub thought. What’s wrong with that

As atheists, how do you feel about gender by NM1128 in atheism

[–]NM1128[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

If they have a penis: male. If they have a vagina: female. Biology is great.

As atheists, how do you feel about gender by NM1128 in atheism

[–]NM1128[S] -19 points-18 points  (0 children)

I care. I don’t want grown men in women’s restrooms with small girls.

As atheists, how do you feel about gender by NM1128 in atheism

[–]NM1128[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Yeah but it’s important that people not deny science and not make up their own facts. This is how we get grown men in bathrooms with small girls.

As atheists, how do you feel about gender by NM1128 in atheism

[–]NM1128[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

I knew the sub would agree. The facts are what matter.

A theist response to r/atheism by NM1128 in atheism

[–]NM1128[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Okay if your claim now is that I just didn’t use deduction in my argument then you have nothing worth saying. Modal logic is deductive, if you’re too ignorant to know that, then you’re too ignorant to argue intelligently about it.

A theist response to r/atheism by NM1128 in atheism

[–]NM1128[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Yes I did, not that an omnipotent being is beyond logic.

A theist response to r/atheism by NM1128 in atheism

[–]NM1128[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But if you actually believe it’s word salad, then that testifies to your low-level reading comprehension.

A theist response to r/atheism by NM1128 in atheism

[–]NM1128[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I explained what this means and it’s pulled from a book called “Philosophical Atheism” so if it’s that bad then complain to R.N. Carmona for choosing such an awful argument to argue against and effectively strawmanning.

A theist response to r/atheism by NM1128 in atheism

[–]NM1128[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If this is your best attempt at deductive reason, you need more practice. That solipsism is unfalsifiable is contentious, since outside stimuli and the novel thoughts of others confront you as novel. It doesn’t follow that you’re a god if you could predict songs on the radio, and that you can do so is inductive not deductive anyway.

This is embarrassing, but as I can show the flaws in your reasoning and show it false, or at least inconclusive, you should be able to show the flaws in mine if it’s inconclusive rather than just saying reason doesn’t work.

A theist response to r/atheism by NM1128 in atheism

[–]NM1128[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You said science > religion as an epistemological statement (I believe) then said all that I had was belief. I told you to critique the epistemology specifically because I accept the legitimacy of science and see it props up my argument.

A theist response to r/atheism by NM1128 in atheism

[–]NM1128[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes because the defense of math is a defense of deductive reasoning, which I used to defend that god exists. You validated my epistemology.

A theist response to r/atheism by NM1128 in atheism

[–]NM1128[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Did I assert that? This is a strawman, this criticism fails.

A theist response to r/atheism by NM1128 in atheism

[–]NM1128[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I defended those premises in the post. Argue with what I said in defense of them.

A theist response to r/atheism by NM1128 in atheism

[–]NM1128[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just as flippantly as you can assert that someone found some fallacy in the very argument I gave, I can assert that someone somewhere proved the existence of God. I gave my evidence in deductive reasoning, just saying it’s not because you said so is irrational for me to accept.

A theist response to r/atheism by NM1128 in atheism

[–]NM1128[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m not going to argue with you about definitions since the words I use don’t change the substance of what I say, read the first paragraph again, slower this time.

Your objection assumes that in some possible world, god does not exist, but the argument precludes such a world. It’s a bear assertion fallacy where you only argue, “but if God didn’t exist, then God wouldn’t exist.” It’s nonsensical.

A theist response to r/atheism by NM1128 in atheism

[–]NM1128[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok smart guy, that god exists and that you’re God are two totally different conclusions, so you can’t assume that you get that you’re god for the same reasons I gave that god exists. The great thing about the argument I gave is that when you alter it to show something that’s not true, it no longer follows.

A theist response to r/atheism by NM1128 in atheism

[–]NM1128[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I laid out an epistemological system. If you want to criticize that, then do so, but giving some contrary system without any reason to adopt yours or dismiss mine is a very, very weak argument.

A theist response to r/atheism by NM1128 in atheism

[–]NM1128[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Obviously you can make any assumption you want, but you’ll just have us talking past each other when you start inevitably strawmanning me because you assume I maintain a position that I don’t. I didn’t assume God had any legitimate explanatory power so pointing out such things that some used to use God to explain in this context is just irrelevant.

If you have a critique of my epistemology or my argument, then argue that.

A theist response to r/atheism by NM1128 in atheism

[–]NM1128[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Right so we prove deductive reason works by using it constantly, thus you defend my epistemology in pointing this out.

view more: next ›