Present arguments for atheism

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

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".

Not the way it works. I say it is a fact that London is the capitol, and I say it is the truth that London is the capitol, then saying it is the truth denotes emotional signficance, while fact does not.

You want this word that had lots of emotion invested in it, but you cannot have it. In science there is no truth, there is only copy, copy, copy. One cannot arrive at truth by copying, one has to invest a decision of their own, create the information themselves of the imporantce of it. One cannot copy importance.

 

[Willamena]

Ah - I see: you assumed (wrongly) that there's no evidence.

No, I asserted correctly that I don't have evidence.

To assert there is none would be the argument from ignorance.

 

[ArtieE]

Not the way it works. I say it is a fact that London is the capitol, and I say it is the truth that London is the capitol, then saying it is the truth denotes emotional signficance, while fact does not.

There's no "emotional significance". It's a fact and it's true that London is the capital of England no "emotional significance" involved at all.

One cannot arrive at truth by copying, one has to invest a decision of their own, create the information themselves of the imporantce of it. One cannot copy importance.

It is a fact and it's true that London is the capital of England it doesn't matter whether that is or isn't "important" or "emotionally significant" to somebody.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

There's no "emotional significance". It's a fact and it's true that London is the capital of England no "emotional significance" involved at all.It is a fact and it's true that London is the capital of England it doesn't matter whether that is or isn't "important" or "emotionally significant" to somebody.

So now you are back to saying they are interchangeable, and they mean the exact same thing. It's nonsense, the difference between the meaning is emotive significance. Truth has emotive significance, fact does not.

 

[Iti oj]

Whats an unimportant fact?

 

[Iti oj]

So now you are back to saying they are interchangeable, and they mean the exact same thing. It's nonsense, the difference between the meaning is emotive significance. Truth has emotive significance, fact does not.

what do you base that off?

 

[ArtieE]

So now you are back to saying they are interchangeable, and they mean the exact same thing. It's nonsense, the difference between the meaning is emotive significance. Truth has emotive significance, fact does not.

It's nonsense. It's a fact that London is the capital of England, there's no so called "emotive significance" in saying it's true that London is the capital of England.

 

[Iti oj]

It's nonsense. It's a fact that London is the capital of England, there's no so called "emotive significance" in saying it's true that London is the capital of England.

I bet people living in London feel an emotional attachment to that fact.

 

[ArtieE]

I bet people living in London feel an emotional attachment to that fact.

What's that got to do with it being a fact and being true that London is the capital of England?

 

[McBell]

What's that got to do with it being a fact and being true that London is the capital of England?

My guess is that the people in London consider it an important fact whilst some others not living in London might consider it an unimportant fact.
Thus it was presented to demonstrate what an unimportant fact is.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, I asserted correctly that I don't have evidence.

No, you didn't. You said "we" - you spoke for both of us.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I've never gotten mad, made to look like a complete fool, or backed into a corner about my disbelief in god - that happened all the time, however, when I was trying to justify my previous false faith...

That told me a lot about the accuracy of certain worldviews.

Theistic claims require an extraordinary amount of substantiating evidence that human history has yet to provide.
Atheism is where it's at until then.

 

[Desert Snake]

No, you didn't. You said "we" - you spoke for both of us.

Are you referring to what I would consider a sketchy theory, regarding early Abrahamic religious beliefs?

 

[ArtieE]

My guess is that the people in London consider it an important fact whilst some others not living in London might consider it an unimportant fact.

Thus it was presented to demonstrate what an unimportant fact is.

What people consider has no bearing on the fact or the truth of a matter.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Are you referring to what I would consider a sketchy theory, regarding early Abrahamic religious beliefs?

I have no idea what you consider sketchy.

 

[Desert Snake]

I have no idea what you consider sketchy.

Unsubstantiated, wild claims/ that may not or probably don't match the most 'logical' inferences we get from study of the early religious beliefs... dunno, you haven't presented anything.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Unsubstantiated, wild claims/ that may not or probably don't match the most 'logical' inferences we get from study of the early religious beliefs... dunno, you haven't presented anything.

Sounds like you've manufactured some phantom argument that I haven't actually made.

The one I actually did make is that reports of religious experiences aren't generally reliable indicators of truth. Do you disagree with this? If not, then let's have a look together at religious experiences in traditions whose beliefs are incompatible with Christian beliefs.

 

[Desert Snake]

Sounds like you've manufactured some phantom argument that I haven't actually made.

....

The one I actually did make is that reports of religious experiences aren't generally reliable indicators of truth.

...

Do you disagree with this? If not, then let's have a look together at religious experiences in traditions whose beliefs are incompatible with Christian beliefs.

I disagree with that general statement, yes. disagreeing with other peoples religious experiences does not ''prove'' anything.

It isn't about agreeing with you, it's about relevance to the topic. For example there are many false theories out there, concerning many things (including the sciences), does this mean that all theories are therefore false or non-believable?

 

[Deathbydefault]

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.

Unsupported logic, unsupported argument, unsupported viewpoint.
By this I would be equally correct in saying that you cannot accept science due to your inability to look at the sun for the rest of your life without going blind.

 

[Iti oj]

What people consider has no bearing on the fact or the truth of a matter.

@Mestemia said was right and i did not mention to say it did matter just that what is considered important is subjective, and i actually used that word correctly. fear not friend i agree with your point