Present arguments for atheism

[Deathbydefault]

It's changing a subjective issue into an objective issue. It is rejection of subjectivity.

It is the same as people who regard love as electrochemical processes in the brain. That is also making a subjective issue into an objective issue, where in that case it is accepted love exists, where in the case of God, it is not accepted God exists.

You don't seem to understand that God is an objective issue.
It is an objective issue as to whether or not God exists.
If it were a subjective issue, then we wouldn't bother to ask for evidence.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You don't seem to understand that God is an objective issue.
It is an objective issue as to whether or not God exists.
If it were a subjective issue, then we wouldn't bother to ask for evidence.

You reject subjectivity, therefore you make it into an objective issue.

It is very clear that religion in general is focused on faith. Faith is not a form of objectivity, it is a form of subjectivity. Your idea the existence of God is objective is simply because you reject subjectivity. You have very simply explicitly rejected subjectivity as I have explained it, so there is no mystery to it that you reject subjectivity.

 

[Iti oj]

if god is a subjective topic does that mean god both does and does not exist? my subjectivity should be as equal as yours.

 

[leibowde84]

Systematic rejection of all subjectivity. It is just the mister Spock stereotype, that's what's atheism is really all about.

This isnt a counter-argument. These are merely unsupported claims. Can you actually counter his claim without merely providing accusations?

 

[Deathbydefault]

You reject subjectivity, therefore you make it into an objective issue.

It is very clear that religion in general is focused on faith. Faith is not a form of objectivity, it is a form of subjectivity. Your idea the existence of God is objective is simply because you reject subjectivity. You have very simply explicitly rejected subjectivity as I have explained it, so there is no mystery to it that you reject subjectivity.

Irrelevant to the discussion.
The debate about God being real is an objective debate.
If it were subjective that would imply God(s) do/es not exist.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

if god is a subjective topic does that mean god both does and does not exist? my subjectivity should be as equal as yours.

Yest, it means both the conclusions God is real, and God is not real, are logically valid.

Just like both conlusions the painting is ugly and the painting is beautiful are valid.

 

[leibowde84]

You reject subjectivity, therefore you make it into an objective issue.

It is very clear that religion in general is focused on faith. Faith is not a form of objectivity, it is a form of subjectivity. Your idea the existence of God is objective is simply because you reject subjectivity. You have very simply explicitly rejected subjectivity as I have explained it, so there is no mystery to it that you reject subjectivity.

Does God exist? Either God does exist or God doesn't exist in reality (objective).

Do you believe in God (faith)? Yes, I believe in the existence of God (subjective belief).

I don't think the issue is with us rejecting subjectivity, as shown above. We accept that belief/opinion is ALWAYS subjective. The issue is with YOU REJECTING OBJECTIVITY, where it obviously exists (such as when you say that whether a specific statement is honest or not, apart from anyone's opinion on the matter, is not objective).

 

[Iti oj]

is

Yest, it means both the conclusions God is real, and God is not real, are logically valid.

Just like both conlusions the painting is ugly and the painting is beautiful are valid.

So if I subjectively stop believing in you, you would stop existing? Or would you exist despite my opinion that you do not exist?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Irrelevant to the discussion.
The debate about God being real is an objective debate.
If it were subjective that would imply God(s) do/es not exist.

You are simply trying to destroy subjectivity with objectivity.

 

[leibowde84]

Yest, it means both the conclusions God is real, and God is not real, are logically valid.

Just like both conlusions the painting is ugly and the painting is beautiful are valid.

Logical validity doesnt necessarily make a claim "true". There are many logically valid claims that are false. So, you are creating a straw man. The existence of God is very different than the subjective conclusion that belief in God is valid.

 

[leibowde84]

You are simply trying to destroy subjectivity with objectivity.

No, you are hopelessly confused. Our conclusion about the existence of God (subjective) is a completely different topic than the existence of God in reality.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

is

So if I subjectively stop believing in you, you would stop existing? Or would you exist despite my opinion that you do not exist?

It means it is your opinion that I have no emotions, no soul, no feelings etc. That the agency of my decisions is empty. That is my true self, so yes that would mean it is your opinion that I as being the owner of my decisions do not exist.

 

[leibowde84]

It means it is your opinion that I have no emotions, no soul, no feelings etc. That the agency of my decisions is empty. That is my true self, so yes that would mean it is your opinion that I as being the owner of my decisions do not exist.

That's not what he said. He said that he doesn't believe in you as existing at all, not just your soul, but your physical form as well.

 

[Iti oj]

It means it is your opinion that I have no emotions, no soul, no feelings etc. That the agency of my decisions is empty. That is my true self, so yes that would mean it is your opinion that I as being the owner of my decisions do not exist.

Wow. I never stated any of that, nor implied that. Now you did not answer my question. Failure to respond to the question will be seen as an admittance that you are wrong.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No, you are hopelessly confused. Our conclusion about the existence of God (subjective) is a completely different topic than the existence of God in reality.

You have no idea what you are talking about, you are just talking garbage.

If you accept the fact that freedom is real, then obviously we might also have a way of reaching a conclusion about what is real by choosing it. And it is shown in common discourse that the reality of beauty, love, God and such is arrived at by choosing. It is just a matter of opinion that some woman is beautiful, but this beauty certainly can be very manipulative of the way things turn out. It chooses the way things turn out.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Wow. I never stated any of that, nor implied that. Now you did not answer my question. Failure to respond to the question will be seen as an admittance that you are wrong.

I corrected your question, as it was nonsense. To express emotions does not create emotions. To express an opinion about what is in the spiritual domain does not create what is in the spiritual domain.

 

[leibowde84]

You have no idea what you are talking about, you are just talking garbage.

If you accept the fact that freedom is real, then obviously we might also have a way of reaching a conclusion about what is real by choosing it. And it is shown in common discourse that the reality of beauty, love, God and such is arrived at by choosing. It is just a matter of opinion that some woman is beautiful, but this beauty certainly can be very manipulative of the way things turn out. It chooses the way things turn out.

God is an entity, beauty is not. So, why do you group the two?

Whether something is beautiful is subjective. The existence of beauty as a concept is objective. Just like belief in God is subjective. The existence of God apart from human beings is objective.

 

[Iti oj]

I corrected your question, as it was nonsense. To express emotions does not create emotions. To express an opinion about what is in the spiritual domain does not create what is in the spiritual domain.

Has nothing to do with what I asked. You did not 'correct' my question but ignored it completely.

Do you exist? Yes or no. Do you exist objectively, or does my subjective opinion effect you?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

That's not what he said. He said that he doesn't believe in you as existing at all, not just your soul, but your physical form as well.

Whether or not the body exists is an objective issue. Subjective issues only apply to agency of decisions. The body or brain are not agency of decision, the body and brain are chosen.

 

[leibowde84]

I corrected your question, as it was nonsense. To express emotions does not create emotions. To express an opinion about what is in the spiritual domain does not create what is in the spiritual domain.

No one is arguing against this straw man. Can you stay on topic, please? We are discussing the existence of God apart from the beliefs of human beings.