Real strong atheists (not partial strong atheists) what are your strongest arguments about the non-existence of god?

So, God is logically inconsistent because he's magic which is to say that he's supernatural, which is to say that he's of or relating to God? Why not just say that you don't believe in God. There's nothing wrong with that. You don't have to find a logical flaw to not believe.

Nope. Like I said, it has nothing to do with what I believe, nor is it about whatever circular logic or contradictions are contained in a few definitions. You objected to the use of the word "magical" on the basis that it was undefined. I provided two definitions which directly link back to the concept of gods, proving that the word was correctly used, whether or not you like it.

Condescension isn't a useful argument. As for the asserting that there's "nothing left," I think you're starting to demonstrate your ignorance of the topic at hand. If you just want to not believe in sky daddies, then please be my guest, and I'll join you, but understand that that's not the concept of deity that I'm discussing, here. Also, your statement, "every single god is anthropomorphized with agency, by definition," depends heavily on your definitions. Hindus would probably contend that the agency of deity is an illusion that we use to try to understand Brahman, and Brahman has no agency at all. I think that the most deeply mystical Jews would assert the same. Buddhists do not universally believe in deity, but those who do often take the same position, especially in India where the line between Buddhism and Hinduism is often blurred.

If it has no agency, it's not recognizable as a god in any meaningful sense. It's not conscious, it makes no decisions, takes no action, sets no rules, offers no guidance, reveals no truths, etc. It is indistinguishable from nature.

Without agency, the word "god" ceases to be meaningful. This is why I'm a strong atheist. Every attempt at defining a god fails. Either it's defined as something we know doesn't exist, it ends up being defined out of existence in one way or another, or the definition is hollowed out until it's unrecognizable and devoid of any significance. All gods not invented in solipsistic word games are anthropomorphized.

"This is your most wriggly of weasels." You're using lots of very pejorative language without much justification. As for your progression of timelessness concepts, I don't accept the transition from atemporal to temporal. This is a clear assertion on your part of a temporal existence. Note my wording which avoided this fallacy, "from our perspective, remains unchanged from all moments in time." Deity is not unchanging because to even assert that relationship to temporal existence is invalid. Rather, deity remains unchanged from our perspective and that's the only perspective we have.

So this is a god that has zero interaction with time? None at all? It didn't create spacetime, has never interfered in reality, etc.? No, what you're doing is weaseling. That's why I used that word before, and I stand by it.

The word "unchanging" doesn't imply any such relationship to time. All it suggests is that the thing being described doesn't change. You can add the caveat "from our perspective" all you want. That doesn't disqualify the word "immortal" from being correctly applied, as well. A being that exists permanently, timelessly, atemporally, even "with no relationship to time whatsoever" (whatever that is supposed to mean), is immortal.

You misunderstand. I'm not retreating. That's where I started. You're so caught up in arguing against Popes and sky daddies that I think you forgot (or perhaps never knew) that religion was about much more than that.

I've never used the words "sky daddy" in my life. This also isn't a conversation about all the things religion's about, just strong atheism, so why would you expect me to deviate into long-winded off-topic soliloquys about religion? Nice try deflecting, I guess.

Unassailability, any competent military strategist will tell you, is defensibility.

Witty, but this ultimately whiffs on the point I was making with my creative language. I also wonder how many military strategists you're acquainted with, let alone competent ones. I digress. The point stands, regardless of your little game of cherry-picking one word and playing off it. Once you hollow out a word's definition so completely as to make it a meaningless unfalsifiable mystery, you're left with a symbolic representation of nothing and a giant argument from ignorance.

What I think you are trying to say is that while a truly ineffable deity may well exist, it's not relevant to your interests, and that's fine. It's relevant to mine.

That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying that no gods exist, even the "ineffable" ones that people retreat to for the sake of word games and apologetics.

But that's also irrelevant to the actual point we started on, that gods are magical anthropomorphic immortals. That's trivially true, by definition.

/r/DebateAnAtheist Thread Parent