McBell
Unbound
See, it is this kind of dishonesty that makes it so difficult to take you seriously.
-
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!
Is there any religious argument that actually stands when scrutinized with reason?
- Thread starter cambridge79
- Start date
outhouse
Atheistically
You have lost credibility a long time ago.
Your own version of theism is just that, you constantly fail to proselytize.
No one is listening to your rhetoric.
McBell
Unbound
apparently you have no problems spreading your dishonest dogma.
Spread it all you like.
I will still point it out.
Have a nice day.
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
That's quite obviously objectivity. So then one can only hope to acccept the existence of God forced by evidence, meaning no faith. Even if one can establish the existence of God as fact, one would have lost all faith, so atheism wins every time when the existence of God is made into a factual matter.
I have the conceptual scheme in which subjectivity and objectivity fit together. You all got nothing on subjectivity, which is why you all resort to other tactics than actually have an argument about how it works.
First they made the Sheldon character on the TV sitcom big bang theory an atheist. Then later they made him a diagnosed autistic. I guess that was because if he naturally failed to comprehend subjectivity, then the character would still be considered symptathetic, while if the Sheldon character ideologically held on to atheism, and therefore rejected subjectivity, he would be considered unsympathetic. Now his atheism is portrayed as associated to his mental condition of autism.
serp777
Well-Known Member
If God is subjective then it means his existence relies totally on whether people believe him or not. That means humans are all powerful--if no human beings believed in God then he wouldn't exist since its subjective right? God is not a subjective question as i've argued multiple times now. You keep parroting that God is subjective but i've shown you the logical chasms with that logic. How can God be real to one person but not be real to another? It makes no sense. This is like trying to apply subjectivity to gravity. WELL, IN MY SUBJECTIVE OPINION, gravity doesn't exist. That's nonsense since gravity exists for all--for instance, either God sent his son Jesus down to earth or he didn't. Muhammad either talked to the angel gabriel or he didn't. Those aren't matters of opinion. It either happened or it didn't just like gravity happens or it doesn't. You're framing the God question as subjective so you can get away with not having a burden of proof. Its a laughable debate tactic and your argument is so pitiful--that atheists don't understand subjective. Well PROVE IT already lol. Subjectivity is when something has no true or false condition and depends on the inidivudal. Objectivity is when something is either true or false and applies to everyone equally. Wow that was easy to understand.
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
That does not follow. It only requires to acknowledge the fact that freedom is real and relevant in the universe. Then one can make opinion about what the agency of these decisions is, or not make any opinion. Still things are chosen in the universe, regardless if one makes an opinion on what the agency of a decision is, or not.
God has always been referred to as "the holy spirit", and the spirit has always been considered agency in the concept of free will. Even for readily observable creation by humans, the act of creation is referred to the soul, the soul does the choosing, and the existence of the soul is held to be a matter of faith, which is a form of opinion. So religious people have always been consistent in referring to agency as a matter of opinion.
It is just atheist racists and such who refer the creations of people to the material brain. You have no working conceptual scheme integrating subjectivity and objectivity into one scheme, where one does not encroach on the other.
serp777
Well-Known Member
No, how does this address anything i've said? Not only do I not acknowledge that true freedom is real--it is always constrained by many things--but freedom has nothing to do with my argument. Simply put, does the existence of God depend upon the person you ask? If all people stopped believing in God then does that mean God no longer exists? If god is subjective he doesn't exist once people stop believing. Even worse, then God exists for some and doesn't exist for others depending on belief.
Actually the brain does the choosing according to many experiments. If you decide to pick up a glass of water studies show that really your brain made the decision several seconds before you thought you were going to make a choice. Its at least the case that many decisions are made by the brain. Also this doesn't logically follow--agency as a matter of opinion has nothing to do with the soul choosing. The fact that Henry Ford was the agent of the creation of the model T isn't a matter of opinion. We know Henry Ford made that decision. Similarly God either made or didn't make the universe. God either did or didn't send Jesus down. God either did or didn't endorse Muhammad. The agency of Henry ford deciding to make the model T doesn't change depending on what you believe or think.
LOL racism? How is anything racist here whatsoever? Seriously that makes no sense. And integrating subjectivity and objectivity into one thing is not only stupid, but then asserting that they don't encroach upon each other is even more ridiculous. For instance, if every human being on the planet thinks a food tastes good, then we can objectively conclude that it is good tasting food for humans. Something subjective suddenly became objective when we get enough data and all the data points line up allowing us to make a conclusion.
Shad
Veteran Member
You hold double-standards. You put forward your own opinion but when someone favours their opinion over your own you cry wolf. You toss up an argument in order to reject the rivial opinion. Since you have provided no objective data as evidence for your claim and rants about science your rebuttal is an opinion. Which is rejected again in favour of another opinion. You cry wolf again then repeat your argument.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
you guys......
and the two of you have been trolling my work for years with no effect.
Cause and effect.....God did it all....
outhouse
Atheistically
Guesses is not work. Faith is not work.
Proselytizing is the only work you have done. Years in, you still cannot substantiate a single word of your guesses.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
and you still hobble on that crutch labeled .....un/substantiated....
outhouse
Atheistically
Yes I like real knowledge backed by education and professors, not guessing and imaginative claims.
McBell
Unbound
I am not the one who has been promoting dishonest dogma all these years.
That would be you.
Kartari
Active Member
Hi Mohammad,
In what way do you see beauty as analogous to a deity or deities? If you mean to substitute one subjective judgement (who is beautiful) for another (gods exist), then the analogy fails. This is because we can in fact demonstrate the existence of beauty as a real phenomenon, whereas the existence of deities cannot be demonstrated as real. We can only demonstrate the belief in deities to be real, rather than any given deities themselves.
I disagree. It's safe to say that scientists are generally not interested in "destroy[ing] the emotional life of people." Everyone feels emotions. Of course subjective perspectives exist and are valuable to human life. Many good scientists are also theists as well, btw.
Some religious groups, however, are certainly interested in the repression of emotions, as I personally found evidence for in my own old school Catholic upbringing. We were taught from an early age to suppress "bad" feelings, that Big Daddy in the sky was perpetually enraged at us for even thinking about sex before marriage as well as all the "bad" things we had to confess to a priest on a regular basis, such as daring to cuss at someone. Imo, it was a very sick mentality that I have long long ago and very thankfully abandoned. Not that all Catholics were taught this btw, I've heard varying accounts. But there was an old school firebrand type of Catholicism that I was unfortunately exposed to in my youth, and sadly I was far from alone.
Ultimately, as long as a scientist can properly judge the rightful places for subjectivity and objectivity, a scientist is standing on firm ground.
In what way do you see beauty as analogous to a deity or deities? If you mean to substitute one subjective judgement (who is beautiful) for another (gods exist), then the analogy fails. This is because we can in fact demonstrate the existence of beauty as a real phenomenon, whereas the existence of deities cannot be demonstrated as real. We can only demonstrate the belief in deities to be real, rather than any given deities themselves.
I disagree. It's safe to say that scientists are generally not interested in "destroy[ing] the emotional life of people." Everyone feels emotions. Of course subjective perspectives exist and are valuable to human life. Many good scientists are also theists as well, btw.
Some religious groups, however, are certainly interested in the repression of emotions, as I personally found evidence for in my own old school Catholic upbringing. We were taught from an early age to suppress "bad" feelings, that Big Daddy in the sky was perpetually enraged at us for even thinking about sex before marriage as well as all the "bad" things we had to confess to a priest on a regular basis, such as daring to cuss at someone. Imo, it was a very sick mentality that I have long long ago and very thankfully abandoned. Not that all Catholics were taught this btw, I've heard varying accounts. But there was an old school firebrand type of Catholicism that I was unfortunately exposed to in my youth, and sadly I was far from alone.
Ultimately, as long as a scientist can properly judge the rightful places for subjectivity and objectivity, a scientist is standing on firm ground.
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
No the fact is that beauty is a matter of opinion, and cannot be demonstrated to be real in any way whatsoever. Which is because agency of any decision cannot be demonstrated in any way whatsoever.
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
Thus demonstrating the wholesale destruction of subjectivity by scientists / evolutionists / atheists / materialists, the usual suspects.
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
It is a fact how subjectivity works, because that decisions are made is still a matter of fact, eventhough agency of the decisions is a matter of opinion.
It is a fact that creationism is consistent with the logic used in common discourse. Both in common discourse and creationism subjectivity uses a logic of freedom. That freedom is empirically real and relevant in the universe, mathematical analysis of empirical data shows that to be the case.
Last edited:
serp777
Well-Known Member
No it isn't; you're making up illogical nonsense now. Nothing i've said is the "destruction of subjectivity" which i might add is a complete and utter over exaggeration.
Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
That you do not acknowledge freedom is real, is very obvious total destruction of any and all subjectivity.