Present arguments for atheism

[9-10ths_Penguin]

....

...

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?

Not sure what you're getting at. My position all through this thread has been that to be justified in accepting something as true (e.g. that a god exists), we need a solid justification. False arguments and theories are irrelevant as long as you have some true, verifiable ones. Do you?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

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

Again, if the words mean the exactsame thing, then there would be no point.

There is a point, which as everbody knows is emotional significance.

What also doesn't figure is that you have no word for emotionally significant fact.

That you have no word for it shows that you rejects subjectivity, and therefore want to change subjective terms into objective terms.

But none of that, all you do is copy from nature like a machine can do. Machines cannot convey the truth they can only convey facts, and if somebody finds it important, then it is truth.

 

[Demonslayer]

That you have no word for it shows that you rejects subjectivity, and therefore want to change subjective terms into objective terms.

***broken records have nothing on this guy***

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Present your argument for atheism.

What do you mean?

 

[ArtieE]

But none of that, all you do is copy from nature like a machine can do. Machines cannot convey the truth they can only convey facts, and if somebody finds it important, then it is truth.

So it's a fact that London is the capital of England but it is only true that London is the capital of England if somebody finds that to be important?

 

[Altfish]

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

I think someone has been editing posts, because I cut and pasted that quote and did not change any words.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

So it's a fact that London is the capital of England but it is only true that London is the capital of England if somebody finds that to be important?

There is a distinct pattern to all you write on religious forums, which is to reject subjectivity. That you now fight here to objectify truth, and elsewhere fight to objectify love as a an electrochemical process in the brain, that you request evidence for the existence of God, it is all one and the same rejection of subjectivity.

 

[columbus]

There is a point, which as everbody knows is emotional significance.

No, it's just the opposite.
Reality is what does not change, regardless of how people feel or what they believe.
What is subjective is what is important only to you.

I try to match my Truth to the reality, as best as I can. Like everyone else, I am imperfect. But science is better at describing reality than any other method.
Religion mostly sinks us back into the primitive world. I prefer reality.
Tom

 

[Iti oj]

There is a distinct pattern to all you write on religious forums, which is to reject subjectivity. That you now fight here to objectify truth, and elsewhere fight to objectify love as a an electrochemical process in the brain, that you request evidence for the existence of God, it is all one and the same rejection of subjectivity.

im not sure we both mean the same thing when we use the words subjective and objective

 

[ArtieE]

There is a distinct pattern to all you write on religious forums, which is to reject subjectivity. That you now fight here to objectify truth, and elsewhere fight to objectify love as a an electrochemical process in the brain, that you request evidence for the existence of God, it is all one and the same rejection of subjectivity.

Is it a fact that London is the capital of England and is it the truth that London is the capital of England regardless what I subjectively think? Yes or no?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No, it's just the opposite.
Reality is what does not change, regardless of how people feel or what they believe.
What is subjective is what is important only to you.

I try to match my Truth to the reality, as best as I can. Like everyone else, I am imperfect. But science is better at describing reality than any other method.
Religion mostly sinks us back into the primitive world. I prefer reality.
Tom

It's just rejection of subjectivity.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Is it a fact that London is the capital of England and is it the truth that London is the capital of England regardless what I subjectively think? Yes or no?

No it's only truth when you regard it as an important fact. It is fact regardless of how you feel about it.

 

[columbus]

im not sure we both mean the same thing when we use the words subjective and objective

Having read many of M Nur Syamsu posts, I am quite certain that he has a meaning for these words that does not match standard usage.
I don't know, but I think he is using words from another language that don't precisely translate into English.
Tom

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

im not sure we both mean the same thing when we use the words subjective and objective

I am quite sure you mean something entirely different.

 

[ArtieE]

No it's only truth when you regard it as an important fact. It is fact regardless of how you feel about it.

What ridiculous nonsense. It is THE TRUTH that London is the capital of England if I regard that as an important fact or not.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Having read many of M Nur Syamsu posts, I am quite certain that he has a meaning for these words that does not match standard usage.
I don't know, but I think he is using words from another language that don't precisely translate into English.
Tom

That is nonsense. I sought to define them in terms of common discourse, and then atheists refer to obscure definitions from idiosyncratic philosophers or scientific theory, often saying they despise common discourse as a bunch of prejudices.

 

[columbus]

It's just rejection of subjectivity.

No it is not.
It is the recognition of subjectivity for what it is. I have plenty of subjective opinions and beliefs. I know that, and they are a big part of my personal world. But they are not reality.
I think my partner Doug is sexy. You may not. We may have different subjective opinions on that. But it is a big part of my reality and I don't care about your subjective opinion on the subject.
Tom

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

What ridiculous nonsense. It is THE TRUTH that London is the capital of England if I regard that as an important fact or not.

See, you use the word truth to denote emotional significance, capitalizing the word.

You have no truth, because you reject subjectivity.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No it is not.
It is the recognition of subjectivity for what it is. I have plenty of subjective opinions and beliefs. I know that, and they are a big part of my personal world. But they are not reality.
I think my partner Doug is sexy. You may not. We may have different subjective opinions on that. But it is a big part of my reality and I don't care about your subjective opinion on the subject.
Tom

I explained how the common discourse statement "the painting is beautiful is arrived at" you provide no explanation how to arrive at it. You just say the word subjective.

 

[ArtieE]

See, you use the word truth to denote emotional significance, capitalizing the word.

LOL I capitalized "the truth" to try to get it into your head that it's true that London is the capital of England no matter if I subjectively thought otherwise. Do you understand that? That what is true doesn't depend on subjective opinions?