Atheists: How do you argue against someone who just renames the words...

M

Meow Meow

New member
..."universe" as "God" and? and "conciousness" as "soul". And then uses the reality of the universe and conciousness' existence as justification for their belief in a "God" and "souls"?
I don't have to argue against anyone, this question is hypothetical.
 
That sounds rather benign so far, so I probably wouldn't bother.

Maybe if they were somehow using that to justify ridiculous, destructive behaviour or con-artist shenanigans. But, generally, folks with such inclinations go for a more elaborate mythology than you're suggesting.
 
I don't, I turn and walk away from the unintelligent pawn of religion. Now if someone makes a critically analyzed argument that doesn't use semantics to try proving god exists, I'll listen.
 
At the end of the day everyone is going to believe what they want to believe. No one has proof that god exist and no one has proof that he doesn't exist. Whats to argue about? Just live life. People believe in what they want to believe because thats what they want to believe. Can't change that.
 
I would say that they have added nothing of value.

An impersonal god who is "the universe" is a meaningless construct: you are just adding an irrelevant layer of information. It doesn't help you predict anything, it doesn't help you decide anything.

It is perfectly fine to be in awe of the majesty of the universe, but you add nothing but confusion by renaming it god.
 
You don't.
That's not all that unreasonable is it? They aren't asking you to behave any differently are they?
I mean, I'm a staunch atheist, but if you define god only as the creator of the universe, then you can have that god, because here we are, and here we weren't before.

Now, if they take it farther and start asking you do DO things because of this god.. You can punch all the holes you want in that stuff, and you won't need anybodies help with arguments either.
 
Why must you argue against them? They percieve or grant personhood to objects or groups of objects. You do not., Neither side can be falsified, but yours is the most reasonable.

I also percieve it but I do not grant it. I've learned to be skeptical of my perceptions. You might try a little of that yourself.
 
That argument won't work with the average atheist's mind, mainly because they lack any kind of imagination (outside of the logical realm) and have not one single creative (god) bone in their body.....Why?.....They're too busy being all logical and stuff to grasp the concept of something as illogical as the existence of a god.

Atheist need to realize that an illogical being (god) can not be disproved or proved with logic (science) it's........ILLOGICAL!!! So not believing in god is a just as ridiculous and faith driven as believing in god.
 
Back
Top