Is there any religious argument that actually stands when scrutinized with reason?

[outhouse]

I thought I was on your "Ignore List".

You are.

To the bold, no, a word is factually born but not factually bound to humanity.

For post like this that are factually false and appear to be word salad.

 

[serp777]

Subjectivity works by choosing about what the agency of a decision is. That procedure results in an opinion.

Atheists simply don't understand anything at all about subjectivity and they suck at it. There is no atheist who has an impressive emotional life, a tender judgement, or anything like that, because all they do is facts.

How is the reality of whether God exists subjective? God is either true or false for everyone. God can't be true for some people depending on their perspective and false for others. That doesn't make sense. Its like saying gravity depends on personal opinion and subjectivity. Nope, everyone still feels gravity even if they have faith otherwise.

Also there is no atheist who has an impressive emotional life? Care to provide any evidence for your crazy assertion? Atheists simply don't rely on emotions when facts are concerned. The reality that computers work, for instance, doesn't depend on emotion or a tender judgment. Similarly the existence of God depends on either. Your emotions about God are irrelevant to the question about the existence of God just as someone's emotions that God doesn't exist doesn't affect the reality of God's existence.

 

[serp777]

You are just following an illusion. Atheism starts out with contrasting the rather formal ritualistic subjectivity of religion, with common sense, rejecting religion. At that point atheism is still accepting of subjectivity, because there is a lot of acceptance of subjectivity in common sense. But then the atheist goes a thinking, and at this point the atheism transforms into the stonecold mister Spock rejection of subjectivity altogether. You have the illusion that atheists have emotions and stuff because they assert what is good and evil with factual, scientific, certitude. That factual certitude may look appealing, as it looks like supreme self confidence of judgement. While us ordinary religious folk just have the fragile emotions to sustain judgement, and ever we are tempted by evil. But when you talk to them at length as I have, their emotional life is completely crap because of this intellectual emphasis on fact to the complete destruction of any and all opinion. They are truly the most revolting anti-human people on earth. There is simply no room for acceptance of the validity of subjectivity in atheism, materialism, naturalism, communism, nazism, and all that garbage. You can quite plainly see that religion is a form of subjectivity which atheists reject, rejecting the worship of God, you should then question if they accept the validity of any subjectivity at all. And the answer is going to be no.

Wow there is so much fail here. Grouping atheism and naturalism with communism and nazism is ridiculous. If anything facism more resembles Shariah than naturalism, materialism, or atheism. Also how is calling atheists logical like Spock supposed to be an insult? Oh atheists are logical and sensible and intelligent? Ok, but that's not an argument for you. Spock is solving the mysteries of the universe whereas kirk is double fist punching people, getting pissed off, and sleeping with alien women. Yeah i think i'd rather be like Spock. Furthermore spock has emotions, he is just very good at repressing them. In fact Vulcans are some of the most emotional beings which is why they spent so much time trying to repress their emotions since their emotions were causing society to break down and wars to start.

But when you talk to them at length as I have, their emotional life is completely crap because of this intellectual emphasis on fact to the complete destruction of any and all opinion

Opinions are only important when they're based on subjective things. Mathematics and logic and true and false propositions do not rely on subjectivity. Human constructs like beauty do rely on subjectivity. It doesn't make sense to apply opinions to something fact based since everyone shares the same facts. The truth or falsehood religion does not depend on interpretation--the existence or non existence of God and his attributes are facts.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

As was said by another you are squeezing all atheist into the little pot of your preconceived ideas. Where one day will you with all that hatred bubbling inside you be? A cracked despotic madman bent on murder? Right now your soul is caught up in darkess and in grip of Shatan, Try a little tenderness and love - it may be your salvation!

I have walked the minds of many people. (Yes I have been in their minds and read their thoughts and souls,) I am not a normal human being and know their love and pain. My love and compassion for all is not filled with illusions nor delusions I do not condemn anyone.

Your comments regarding them is most revolting and unbecoming.

I worship none of your Gods or demi-gods for the universal spirit is in me and I was born as I am. Come take my hand and walk into my reality beyond it all where all realities is my reality, where pettiness of all kinds cannot,, does not and never will exist in the harsh yet most beautiful light of the truth.

Added as an edit:
See then how the Islamic religion sees the Golden Rule

http://islam.ru/en/content/story/golden-rule-islam

You are just bent on delusion. Reality is the holocaust, the threat of thermonuclear war, and total environmental destruction of the earth. The reality is that people reject subjectivity, the head vs heart struggle rages furiously, destroying the heart. An atheist does not do subjectivity, opinion, this is why they always ask for proof, because they only do objectivity, facts. What is obvious in this case is also the truth of it.

 

[McBell]

You are just bent on delusion. Reality is the holocaust, the threat of thermonuclear war, and total environmental destruction of the earth. The reality is that people reject subjectivity, the head vs heart struggle rages furiously, destroying the heart. An atheist does not do subjectivity, opinion, this is why they always ask for proof, because they only do objectivity, facts. What is obvious in this case is also the truth of it.

Some atheist really caused you some serious butt hurt, didn't they?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

How is the reality of whether God exists subjective?

As demonstrated atheists have no idea whatsoever how subjectivity works.

 

[outhouse]

Some atheist really caused you some serious butt hurt, didn't they?

Some just hate being beat down by reality, reason and logic.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Some just hate being beat down by reality, reason and logic.

You've got nothing going in your emotions to make any judgement on me, it's just emptiness. You don't believe in God, you don't pray.

Subjectivity als has a logic to it, a rule. The conclusion cannot be forced by evidence, but must be chosen in stead. That is how we learn who somebody is, making the decisions that they do, their agency. And who you are making the decisions that you do.....emptiness.

 

[McBell]

You've got nothing going in your emotions to make any judgement on me, it's just emptiness. You don't believe in God, you don't pray.

Subjectivity als has a logic to it, a rule. The conclusion cannot be forced by evidence, but must be chosen in stead. That is how we learn who somebody is, making the decisions that they do, their agency. And who you are making the decisions that you do.....emptiness.

as empty as your dogmatic preaching of nonsense?

 

[allfoak]

as empty as your dogmatic preaching of nonsense?

It is good to see you are feeling better.

 

[McBell]

It is good to see you are feeling better.

I will be putting him back on ignore.
I have found that in doing so, the intellectual level of the whole thread rises greatly.

 

[outhouse]

You've got nothing going in your emotions to make any judgement on me

Emotions have no part in observing your baseless arguments which you NEVER source to any credible academic knowledge.

I'm not picking on you, but many of your replies I cannot even understand, because your just making up your own meaning to concepts, you obviously do not understand.

 

[serp777]

As demonstrated atheists have no idea whatsoever how subjectivity works.

You've demonstrated nothing except the weakness of your assertions and your ignorance. You don't understand what subjectivity is clearly since you don't realize that either God exists for all, or he doesn't. He doesn't exist for some people and not exist for others.

 

[serp777]

You've got nothing going in your emotions to make any judgement on me, it's just emptiness. You don't believe in God, you don't pray.

Subjectivity als has a logic to it, a rule. The conclusion cannot be forced by evidence, but must be chosen in stead. That is how we learn who somebody is, making the decisions that they do, their agency. And who you are making the decisions that you do.....emptiness.

Clearly the only argument you have is one from emotion. You don't have any arguments based in reason and logic, which i'm glad to see you admit. You couldn't possibly win the debate with an appeal to emotion, so you're basically conceding that you are able to debate.

 

[McBell]

Emotions have no part in observing your baseless arguments which you NEVER source to any credible academic knowledge.

I'm not picking on you, but many of your replies I cannot even understand, because your just making up your own meaning to concepts, you obviously do not understand.

but...
but... ...
he has a much much deeper understanding of those concepts than you and I mere atheist fools could possibly comprehend...

yes, that was sarcasm

 

[Kartari]

Hi cambridge,

To non believers I ask, Have you ever faced an argument that really represented a challenge for you or that you weren't able to dismantle?

If you mean supernatural claims specifically, unfortunately, I have not. And this is after having debated the matter for nearly two decades.

Deities are particularly problematic. I have yet to find one person who can, as I put it to them, demonstrate the existence of deities beyond the confines of human imagination. Indeed, good luck getting a clear definition of what any given theist is even talking about when they use the words God or god, particularly capital G God. Confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, and logically fallacious thinking are commonly encountered instead in my experience.

 

[Kartari]

Hi Thana,

Like with Atheism and Theism, Since there is no more evidence for Atheism than there is for Theism.

This is a common misunderstanding among many theists in my experience. Your statement above is logically fallacious: more specifically, you are shifting the burden of proof. Hopefully, I can clarify things a bit...

It comes down to understanding where the burden of proof truly lies in any given argument. The necessity of proof must always lie with the side that makes a positive assertion, and not the negative. This is why in U.S. law, the defense (which upholds the negative claim) is assumed innocent of all charges leveled against them until the prosecution satisfactorily proves their case: because the prosecution, and not the defense, is making the positive assertion.

In the debate over the existence of deities, the logic is the same. The theist (the side claiming positively in a deity or deities' existence) must logically bear the burden of proof. The atheist (who does not believe the theist's claim about deities, and therefore is making the negative claim), however, is assumed correct until, as in a court of law, sufficient evidence is presented to shift the burden of proof onto the negative claimant.

Now, if one wishes to believe in a deity or deities regardless of logic or evidence, that's their prerogative. But proving their existence in reality requires sufficient evidence before the default position can be shifted away from the atheist.

 

[Kartari]

Hey MMarcoe,

Yes. In Buddhism, we are asked to use empirical investigation to determine whether the Buddha's teachings actually work. We are also asked to use observation to learn how the mental faculties work and to see whether there is an abiding self in all of that.

Buddhism is a religion, by the way. It is considered a non-theistic one by most, although many Buddhists believe in a god. Some Buddhists equate nirvana with God.

This is my first post here, and I expect civil dialogue on all sides. After writing 25,000+ posts on Beliefnet.com before it closed its forums this fall, I am hoping to find a good forum to replace it. Facebook has been a bit of a letdown in that regard.

Nice to see a familiar face here. I hope more of the intelligent posters from BNet make their way over here. I've seen Kelly posting here as well.

I agree with you about Buddhism. It does indeed encourage a rational methodology I also am drawn to, which imo is a unique perspective among the world's religions. Though, I have never heard of any established Buddhist school equate nirvana to God... did you have a particular school in mind, out of curiosity?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Now, if one wishes to believe in a deity or deities regardless of logic or evidence, that's their prerogative. But proving their existence in reality requires sufficient evidence before the default position can be shifted away from the atheist.

Or so to say, if beauty is real, then it must be proven, which means subjectivity is wrong.

Beauty is real, and if someone finds some woman beautiful, then it can make a lot of difference to the way things turn out, life thrown upside down, decades of marriage, totally different. Things in the universe can turn out several different ways, not just for people, freedom is real and relevant in the entire universe. What the agency of a decision is, is categorically a subjective issue, and there is no subjective issue besides agency.

Scientists, being insane, do intellectual combat to make every issue an objective issue, so as to enlarge the domain of facts, which is their livelyhood. The scientists still allow room for emotions, meaning they allow to use the word emotion, subjectivity and such, as long as the logic of facts are used with those terms. So as that love is an electrochemical process in the brain, which can readily be observed as fact, meaning that what we like is a matter of fact. It is a systematic effort to destroy the emotional life of people, to crucify people on the cross of the scientific method. Faulting them for any time they genuinely express emotion, with thei free will.

 

[Thief]

Do you realize that the fact that he is supernatural is something you arbitrarily assume in order to make sense of something that does not? You have to recur to magic every time in order to justify what you want to believe: "everything has a cause. Except god cause he is magic" "everything is created. Except god cause he is magic." and yet you have the audacity to claim you don t even have the burden of proof.

And obviously when a believer of a different religion from yours that worship a different god from yours uses your very same arguments to prove his god and disprove yours you reject them as nonsense.
This is all your wisdom in a nutshell.

well gee.....to be the Creator would super!.....over all that is natural....

not arbitrary at all