Present arguments for atheism

[ArtieE]

We might know what early life looked like and what it was made of, but we still don't know what that spark was that turned chemicals and elements into a living thing.

What "spark"? There was no "spark". Just a continuous evolution until the collections of "chemicals and elements" acquired the properties we require them to have in order for us to call them "alive".

I disagree on the observations comment. People have been having religious and supernatural experiences for thousands of years. It might not be something that can be replicated or explained but it's still something they experienced. To write them all off as delusions or tricks of the mind would be foolish.

Until we have conclusive evidence that what people experience is real and not imaginary we must assume their experiences are imaginary.

 

[ArtieE]

"Irrational" is obviously just a codeword for subjective. The atheists like mister Spock try to get rid of all irrationality by which they mean get rid of all subjectivity. Get rid of the procedure to reach a conclusion by expression of emotion with free wil, and in stead have the existence of love, God and the soul be a matter of fact issue.

So God and the soul don't actually exist people just think so because they are subjective and irrational?

 

[Ultimatum]

Don't worry because in early November 2015 after CERN starts using Pb ions on October 16th, multiple daemons will all be entering into this world via portals.

Hey maybe one will hit you with a giant mushroom and laugh at the same time. That will be so entertaining.

This is on the verge of trolling.

I've often thought something along those lines - that maybe the conditions and components for how life began can never be replicated. If that's the case,

Good!

there will always be an argument for religion no mater how irrational it might seem.

Oh.

Through the assistance of scientists, right? It's not like a sterile test tube (or even one filled with chemical compounds) suddenly developed cell membranes and self-replicating RNA without some kind of interaction. And even then, we might have a clue how these basic components formed but we don't have a clue what's behind the spark that makes something non-living to living. So until that's figured out, there will always be the argument, yes, god did it. And if you were ever to figure out how life began, the next step will be to figure out how to create matter from nothing.

But it shows that it may be possible.
Argument from incredulity.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

So God and the soul don't actually exist people just think so because they are subjective and irrational?

You are just rejecting subjectivity.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Seems as though there isn't a lot of necessary term defining going on:

Anyways, @Mohammad Nur Syamsu what a pleasure meeting you here.
Shall we engage in discussion, as to confuse the vast amount of people whom have you on ignore?
I think so...


You may be the first certified 'subjective neuroscientist'.
I use "subjective" seriously, because you cannot be taken as such.

Your mental condition you talked about, is caused by your intellectual rejection of subjectivity.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Truth is always objective. The moment you believe the evidence, you are taking the evidence objectively. Not sure what you are referring to as a standard for argument.

Truth is essentially subjective. Only important facts can be said to be truth.

 

[Iti oj]

But because an experience is triggered by chemistry (say an hallucinogen) who is to say the experience had was not genuinely an expansion of consciousness? For example, the chemical as many say loosened the connection between the brain and the spirit allowing a spiritual experience.

That's the hard question.

Check out http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismatheiststheism/a/AntiTheism.htm

from the article, "If a person wishes to be a rational atheist, they must do so on the basis of something other than simply thinking theism is harmful; if a person wishes to be a rational anti-theist, they must find a basis other than simply not believing that theism if true or reasonable" I think that puts my post on the 'rational atheism' side.

 

[Altfish]

Truth is essentially subjective. Only important facts can be said to be truth.

You'll have to explain that further. Especially the second sentence.

So, because it is a fact that Altrincham FC beat Boreham Wood FC 1-0 at the weekend that is important; alternatively you are saying it is not true.

Please calrify

 

[HekaMa'atRa]

What "spark"? There was no "spark". Just a continuous evolution until the collections of "chemicals and elements" acquired the properties we require them to have in order for us to call them "alive".

Possible and interesting theory.

Until we have conclusive evidence that what people experience is real and not imaginary we must assume their experiences are imaginary.

What if religious/supernatural experiences can't be measured by science? Scientists postulate the existence of Dark Matter in universe and yet its deemed invisible and cannot be proven. We just have evidence that something is going on but don't know for sure.

But it shows that it may be possible.

To create the parts and structures needed for life and cells to operate? Maybe. Creating real living cells from just chemicals and elements and then creating a real creature of some sort? That has yet to be seen. And if it takes billions of years for such a thing to happen, will we ever see it?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You'll have to explain that further. Especially the second sentence.

So, because it is a fact that Altrincham FC beat Boreham Wood FC 1-0 at the weekend that is important; alternatively you are saying it is not true.

Please calrify

There are these 2 words, fact and truth, they don't mean the same thing. Important facts are truth, and facts which aren't important are just facts. Importance is a subjective qualifier, one can only reach the conlusion about what is important by choosing it. Therefore truth has an essentially subjective element.

 

[ArtieE]

Truth is essentially subjective. Only important facts can be said to be truth.

LOL. The definition of truth is "that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality." Something doesn't become true just because you SUBJECTIVELY think it's true.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Your mental condition you talked about, is caused by your intellectual rejection of subjectivity.

Good to know that you know everything about me.
Do please demonstrate your false mystical powers further.

 

[Altfish]

There are these 2 words, fact and truth, they don't mean the same thing. Important facts are truth, and facts which aren't important are just facts. Importance is a subjective qualifier, one can only reach the conlusion about what is important by choosing it. Therefore truth has an essentially subjective element.

I think ArtieE has already said this but importance has absolutely nothing to do with truth. And truth as has been said is NOT subjective. Truth is provable by evidence and facts will be part of that evidence.

 

[ArtieE]

There are these 2 words, fact and truth, they don't mean the same thing. Important facts are truth, and facts which aren't important are just facts. Importance is a subjective qualifier, one can only reach the conlusion about what is important by choosing it. Therefore truth has an essentially subjective element.

Truth has no subjective element. It's true that the earth would be here and it's a fact that the earth would be here even if nobody with any "subjective truths" were around.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I think ArtieE has already said this but importance has absolutely nothing to do with truth. And truth as has been said is NOT subjective. Truth is provable by evidence and facts will be part of that evidence.

Is complete nonsense, there is a difference between facts and truth. Unimportant facts are not truth, they are just facts. Why have 2 different words if they mean the same thing.

You want to co-opt the emotive term truth into the domain of objectivity, because you reject subjectivity, but all objective terms are so dry and mathematical. You want the shiny importance, and meaningfulness that is invested in the word truth, but you cannot have it, because you reject subjectivity.

You have facts, and that is all you have. Not truth, beauty or love.

All one does in science is copy. Copy from nature to an accurate mathematical model of it. That the copy is accurate does not make it truth, it makes it fact.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Good to know that you know everything about me.
Do please demonstrate your false mystical powers further.

1+1=2, if somebody suffers from a mental condition to not be capable of expression of emotion, and then intellectually argues that subjectivity is invalid, then the mental condition is caused by rejection of subjectivity intellectually.

 

[Altfish]

Is complete nonsense, there is a difference between facts and truth. Unimportant facts are not truth, they are just facts. Why have 2 different words if they mean the same thing.

You want to co-opt the emotive term truth into the domain of objectivity, because you reject subjectivity, but all objective terms are so dry and mathematical. You want the shiny importance, and meaningfulness that is invested in the word truth, but you cannot have it, because you reject subjectivity.

You have facts, and that is all you have. Not truth, beauty or love.

I think you are getting confused.
Yes, there is a difference between fact and truth, no argument there. But when you say "Unimportant facts are not truth" they are not facts it is you who is talking nonsense. When I say, "Nadia has won The Great British Bake Off" that is a fact, an unimportant fact (too most people), it is also the truth, she did win it.
Truth is a collection of many facts and evidence. Gravity is true, I can prove that by gathering many facts, e.g. I drop a pencil it falls is a fact; the planets rotate round the sun is a fact, etc.
"You want to co-opt the emotive term truth into the domain of objectivity, because you reject subjectivity, but all objective terms are so dry and mathematical. You want the shiny importance, and meaningfulness that is invested in the word truth, but you cannot have it, because you reject subjectivity." No, I don't, I understand what a fact is and what truth is, I know the difference, please don't tell me what I want to do.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

But when you say "Unimportant facts are not truth" they are not facts

But then I didn't say that, I said unimportant facts, are just facts.

 

[Demonslayer]

1+1=2, if somebody suffers from a mental condition to not be capable of expression of emotion, and then intellectually argues that subjectivity is invalid, then the mental condition is caused by rejection of subjectivity intellectually.

DERP

 

[ArtieE]

Is complete nonsense, there is a difference between facts and truth. Unimportant facts are not truth, they are just facts.

Is complete nonsense. It's a fact that London is the capital of England, it's true that London is the capital of England. Nothing to do with "importance".