leibowde84
Veteran Member
Do emotions not exist if they can be explained naturally? Are they any less important? If they are less important, why do you think that?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I see no value in atheism
- Thread starter The Transcended Omniverse
- Start date
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
To be explained naturally means to say that beauty and goodness are matters of fact, it is a category error.There is no question about it. As a matter of logic all agency of any decision is categorically a matter of opinion, which is why the existence of love and hate are a matter of opinion, not fact.
Last edited by a moderator:
leibowde84
Veteran Member
How do you know that it is a category error beyond it simply seeming/feeling like it is?
Last edited by a moderator:
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
I explained this several times already. Facts are forced by evidence, cause and effect. The agency of a decision is free per definition, which is why the force of evidence cannot apply to it.
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
Because you do not arrive at emotive words by properly expressing your emotions, but you use emotive words to manipulate opinion in a calculated way.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
But isn't that completely denying the fact that science is always changing. That our perceptions have been proved wrong time and time again throughout history. Who's to say that it is not possible we might find a natural explanation for this separation? I too do not believe it to be the case. I am merely pointing out the possibility. Certainty is an illusion.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Can you provide a specific example? Your explanation is a bit vague.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
It almost seems like you are trying to compliment my linguistic skills, but that couldn't be.
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
Nonsense. We've had the exactsame discussion before already. You regard what is good and evil as fact, which why you return again and again to everything being explained naturally.
Possibilities only make sense in regards to freedom, and freedom validates opinion. It is then illogical to predict that possibilities may give rise to everything becoming fact.
And this was meant for....what? Insults? Why exactly? What purpose does this serve other than to make you look petty and childish. Atheists are just like,every other person in terms of emotion, knowing love, fear,hate, and so on. At the least, they are far more civil than you.
There is no such thing as 'evil'. There are people making good choices or bad ones. Each of us is on the path we choose to be. We are learning from our experiences, some learning what is good and some not so good. I'm sorry you don't know the difference.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Tons of things that long ago seemed extremely logical ended up later being wrong. Why would you eliminate the mere possibility?
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
Because it is lying. I can see that all scientific theory which describes in terms of things being chosen is sidelined. I can see widespread rejection of subjectivity, atheism coupled with regarding love and hate as electrochemical processes in the brain. I can see that knowledge of good and evil provides a sham feeling of absolute confidence, while normally we are not very confident about anything.
So then you want to leave the possibility open for good and evil in the future to be fact is lying. You want to enjoy sham feelings of absolute confidence from your factual certainly about what is good and evil together with your evolution theory conspirators.
You could also have said, maybe in the future science will evaporate and it will all be religion. Not that I support that, but you could just as well have said that. But you didn't, you said it will all be science. You also simply reject my explanation of how subjectivity works, without argument. So it means you are against opinion.
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
No they aren't, mostly. Atheists generally have a deep problem with subjectivity, they compete fact against opinion.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
That is just a claim that the possibility makes you uneasy, right? Your desires for how you would prefer reality to operate are not relevant to this conversation. We are discussing a mere possibility.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Do you think opinion is fact? I'm pretty sure that every materialist respects the difference between fact and opinion.
Suppose we come across somebody raping a little girl to death, are we supposed to stop him? According to you he isn't doing anything wrong...
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
Of course they don't. Materialists regard love as fact, as electrochemical processes in the brain, which means they regard beauty as fact.
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
Does not follow. You can make an opinion that it is wrong, that the agency of the decisions is evil.
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
We are just discussing your desire for sham absolute confidence by asserting good and evil as fact. That is why you come up with science possibly destroying opinion, but not come up with religion possibly destroying fact.