I see no value in atheism

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Nope just an attack against your ideas of subjectivity not subjectivity as a defined term most people accept. Which does not even require a "spiritual domain"

Of course previously you ridiculed common discourse as a bunch of prejudices, in favor of evolutionary science about morality. Now you turn around and lay claim to common discourse.

Let's see, about 70? percent of people believe in God. And religion is almost universally regarded as subjective, focusing on faith, so that the word religion is almost interchangeable with the word faith. Then there are the atheists like Audrey Hepburn was who considered morality to be based on emotion, that murder is "disgusting" etc. Which maybe leaves about 5 percent of the population who follow science and who consider what is good and evil a fact based on evolution theory. These sort of people are ridiculed in culture on shows like the "Big bang theory", where these characters talk about what people in fact feel, and who is in fact better looking, and superior.

 

[FTNZ]

Of course previously you ridiculed common discourse as a bunch of prejudices, in favor of evolutionary science about morality. Now you turn around and lay claim to common discourse.

Let's see, about 70? percent of people believe in God. And religion is almost universally regarded as subjective, focusing on faith, so that the word religion is almost interchangeable with the word faith. Then there are the atheists like Audrey Hepburn was who considered morality to be based on emotion, that murder is "disgusting" etc. Which maybe leaves about 5 percent of the population who follow science and who consider what is good and evil a fact based on evolution theory. These sort of people are ridiculed in culture on shows like the "Big bang theory", where these characters talk about what people in fact feel, and who is in fact better looking, and superior.

In the US, about 70-80% of people say they have a religious affiliation. This does not necessarily mean they believe in a god or gods. That subset is unknown.

In other countries, such as many of those in Europe, and Australia and NZ, religious affiliation rates are around 50%, and the number believing in a god or gods, is an unknown number lower than that.

Please do not extrapolate and misuse statistics from one country as if they apply to the whole world.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

In the US, about 70-80% of people say they have a religious affiliation. This does not necessarily mean they believe in a god or gods. That subset is unknown.

In other countries, such as many of those in Europe, and Australia and NZ, religious affiliation rates are around 50%, and the number believing in a god or gods, is an unknown number lower than that.

Please do not extrapolate and misuse statistics from one country as if they apply to the whole world.

The number of believers for the world population is probably higher. And most atheists even in the West are not like the atheists on the internet.

The concept of subjectivity does not function without regarding the agency of decisions as a matter of opinion. It does not require acceptance of God, but for practical purposes it at least requires acknowledgement of love and hate on a subjective basis, so that you can speak of what you like and dislike.

Anybody who reasonably considers the issue, if love is to be regarded as fact, or if love is to be regarded as opinion, will reach this bleedingly obvious conclusion, that the existence of love is a matter of opinion.

The idea that you can have a functioning concept of subjectivity while all things including love and hate are material has simply always been utter nonsense. These people never consider if it would work to have the existence of love and hate be a matter of opinion. They simply regard love and hate as one more issue among many, like photosynthesis, the orbit of planets, and the expansion of salty seawater, which they will also solve in the exact same way as they solve other issues.

You can see that it is utter nonsense by that the same people who say love and hate are material, also say that freedom......isn't real. Jerry Coyne, Paul Myers, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Susan Blackmore, Will Provine, Sam Harris.... they all deny free will is real.

(Although some in this list will say they accept free will, they have redefined it to mean that:
I could not have done otherwise -- so what?
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lorm... I could not have done otherwise--so what.pdf)

There is an obvious pattern of people denying free will is real, and the same people regarding everything as material, which is because subjectivity operates by free will.

 

[ArtieE]

In other countries, such as many of those in Europe, and Australia and NZ, religious affiliation rates are around 50%, and the number believing in a god or gods, is an unknown number lower than that.

Here in Norway according to a poll from 2010 22% believe there is a God. (Wikipedia). And it is the second best country to live in in the world. Top 10 best countries to live in the world 2014-2015

 

[Bunyip]

No, I'm not ''playing games'', the contradiction seems plain;
If you equate gnostic and agnostic to 'knowledge claims', then equate atheism to agnosticism, then you just said you made a knowledge claim. I'm not even sure why you are so intent on using agnostic/gnostic in that manner. "I don't know", is not a knowledge claim.

Yes, I don't know is not a knowledge claim. Atheism makes no knowledge claim. The reason I use agnostic/atheist as I did is simply because that is what those terms mean. That you did not know what these terms mean is hardly evidence of inconsistency on my part.

 

[Shad]

Of course previously you ridiculed common discourse as a bunch of prejudices, in favor of evolutionary science about morality. Now you turn around and lay claim to common discourse.

Common discourse is when people are talking about an agreed upon subject not opposing ideas. Thus this does not apply to this discussion.

Let's see, about 70? percent of people believe in God. And religion is almost universally regarded as subjective, focusing on faith, so that the word religion is almost interchangeable with the word faith. Then there are the atheists like Audrey Hepburn was who considered morality to be based on emotion, that murder is "disgusting" etc. Which maybe leaves about 5 percent of the population who follow science and who consider what is good and evil a fact based on evolution theory. These sort of people are ridiculed in culture on shows like the "Big bang theory", where these characters talk about what people in fact feel, and who is in fact better looking, and superior.

Ad populum argument. No amount of agreement among non-experts makes a belief true. Most believers are not evolutionary biologists so the 70% is meaningless. Argument from authority...

So a TV show hurts your feelings and other believers? That is an appeal to emotion which is a fallacy.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Common discourse is when people are talking about an agreed upon subject not opposing ideas. Thus this does not apply to this discussion.



Ad populum argument. No amount of agreement among non-experts makes a belief true. Most believers are not evolutionary biologists so the 70% is meaningless. Argument from authority...

So a TV show hurts your feelings and other believers? That is an appeal to emotion which is a fallacy.

Completely cynical that now you see that common discourse uses an essentially creationist definition of subjectivity, you drop your claim about it, and deride common discourse over the word of evolution experts again.

Evolution experts who generally all deny free will is real and who have a history of social darwinism. You might just as well reference Hitler as your authority on how subjectivity works.

 

[FTNZ]

Godwin's law.

 

[Desert Snake]

Yes, I don't know is not a knowledge claim. Atheism makes no knowledge claim. The reason I use agnostic/atheist as I did is simply because that is what those terms mean. That you did not know what these terms mean is hardly evidence of inconsistency on my part.

Why don't you give definitions for all these terms, as you seem to insist that you are not contradicting yourself.

 

[Bunyip]

Why don't you give definitions for all these terms, as you seem to insist that you are not contradicting yourself.

I did so a few posts ago.

 

[Desert Snake]

Cool, atheism is essentially agnostic - it is not a knowledge claim.

....^

Because gnostic/agnostic speaks to what a person KNOWS. Whilst atheist/theist speaks to what a person believes. Atheism and agnosticism are not exclusive categories, many theists are agnostic. So are many atheists.

I identify as atheist because it reflects my disbelief in the gods I know of.

..^

Correct. GNOSTIC/AGNOSTIC speaks to what I KNOW. Atheism/theism is about what I BELIEVE. And yes I equate atheism in as far as implicit atheism is concerned with agnosticism because it is not a knowledge claim. I have said that several times.

Why are you saying that agnosticism equates to what you ''know''?

 

[Desert Snake]

'Believe and 'know', are you saying that there is a difference?

You BELIEVE THAT YOU KNOW, RATHER.

 

[Bunyip]

....^


..^


Why are you saying that agnosticism equates to what you ''know''?

Because agnosticism relates to what you know - that is what it means. 'GNOSTIC' means 'knowing'. 'AGNOSTIC' means not knowing. So I am using it the way I am using it, because that is an appropriate usage.

 

[Bunyip]

'Believe and 'know', are you saying that there is a difference?

You BELIEVE THAT YOU KNOW, RATHER.

Yes, there is a difference in meaning between 'believe' and 'know'. The dictionary will explain that for you.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Godwin's law.

Ridiculously evil is where evolutionists are at. The rejection of subjectivity provides a potential for bizarre, unlimited evil. Anybody who thinks it is a reasoned position, that these professors have thought about, and came upon their position after consideration of the issues, is mistaken. They just assert that what is good and evil must be fact, because they are so inclined, and then they throw all their cleverness and politics on defending this position which they arrived at without any consideration whatsoever.

You can see Shad first claims support from common conception of subjectivity, then after it seems the common conception of subjectivity requires that the existence of love and hate are regarded as a matter of opinion, he throws out consideration of the common concept again. It is all just cleverness of trying to find supporting arguments for a position which was arrived at with prejudice, without any consideration whatsoever.

It is deeply psychological, these people will never accept that good and evil is a matter of opinion. There is enormous psychological pressure from authority figures and ideals, to do good, which pressure leads them to assert factual certainty that what they do is good.

 

[Desert Snake]

Cool, atheism is essentially agnostic - it is not a knowledge claim.

..^

Because gnostic/agnostic speaks to what a person KNOWS. Whilst atheist/theist speaks to what a person believes. Atheism and agnosticism are not exclusive categories, many theists are agnostic. So are many atheists.

I identify as atheist because it reflects my disbelief in the gods I know of.

Your own definitions render 'agnostic atheism', a redundancy, actually.

 

[Bunyip]

..^



Your own definitions render 'agnostic atheism', a redundancy, actually.

Agreed. That is why I usually just identify as atheist in the context of Christian apologetics. Unless I am addressing a specific knowledge claim it is indeed redundant.

 

[ArtieE]

It is deeply psychological, these people will never accept that good and evil is a matter of opinion.

You mean raping little girls to death isn't actually wrong, it is right if the rapist says it is? Muslim Man Rapes Child Bride Until She Dies

 

[Desert Snake]

Agreed. That is why I usually just identify as atheist in the context of Christian apologetics. Unless I am addressing a specific knowledge claim it is indeed redundant.

I am definitely self declared non- ''Christian apologist''. There are too many divisions in belief in the Xian faith, to be an all around Xian apologist, imo. It is rather more about very specific deity concepts, and such, that I might argue. If there is is a ''mainstream'' Xianity, then also, I am too different in beliefs, for that; so again, most Xian apologeitcs aren't going to apply to my beliefs anyway.

 

[Bunyip]

I am definitely self declared non- ''Christian apologist''. There are too many divisions in belief in the Xian faith, to be an all around Xian apologist, imo. It is rather more about very specific deity concepts, and such, that I might argue. If there is is a ''mainstream'' Xianity, then also, I am too different in beliefs, for that; so again, most Xian apologeitcs aren't going to apply to my beliefs anyway.

That's interesting thanks. I did not assume you were a Christian, I just gave an example.