Present arguments for atheism

[leibowde84]

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.

The existence of God is not a decision. Believing in God is, but that is completely irrelevant to this thread.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

We aren't discussing belief in God. We are discussing the existence of God apart from belief.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

We aren't discussing belief in God. We are discussing the existence of God apart from belief.

The existence of God is a matter of belief, because the term God is defined in terms of agency of decisions.

Once again, it just means you are rejecting any and all subjectivity.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

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?

It was already answered. No I do not exist objectively.

Your opinion of me, may or may not affect me, depending on how I deal with it.

 

[leibowde84]

The existence of God is a matter of belief, because the term God is defined in terms of agency of decisions.

Once again, it just means you are rejecting any and all subjectivity.

So, God doesn't exist apart from us believing in him?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

So, God doesn't exist apart from us believing in him?

It does not say that. It only says the conclusion whether or not God is real is reached by choosing it.

 

[Deathbydefault]

You are simply trying to destroy subjectivity with objectivity.

No you simply just do not understand.
Your ignorance is not my issue, neither is your lack of education on this subject.
If you continue to deny what is correct, without even bothering to educate yourself, your ignorance will progress to stupidity.
I do not entertain the arguments of stupid people.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No you simply just do not understand.
Your ignorance is not my issue, neither is your lack of education on this subject.
If you continue to deny what is correct, without even bothering to educate yourself, your ignorance will progress to stupidity.
I do not entertain the arguments of stupid people.

...you all insist love, God, truth are objective issues. It's all just rejection of subjectivity.

And while you say you accept beauty is subjective, you all then explain beauty in terms of experience or uniqueness, and not in terms of agency of decisions.

So it is rejection of subjectivity, and then the redefining of subjectivity into something unrelated to subjective statements in common discourse.

 

[Iti oj]

It was already answered. No I do not exist objectively.
.

How does that work?

 

[Deathbydefault]

...you all insist love, God, truth are objective issues. It's all just rejection of subjectivity.

And while you say you accept beauty is subjective, you all then explain beauty in terms of experience or uniqueness, and not in terms of agency of decisions.

So it is rejection of subjectivity, and then the redefining of subjectivity into something unrelated to subjective statements in common discourse.

Let me tell you about something quite amazing.
It's this thing called a dictionary, we use it to define words.

Love has a physical place inside the brain, it is a reaction to a situation.
That is how love is objective.
The emotional feeling of love towards pets, people, food, art, etc. is subjective.

The claim that God is real is an objective claim.
The claim that God is good is a subjective claim.

We aren't the ones confusing subjectivity and objectivity, you are.

 

[ArtieE]

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

Either God is real or he isn't. One of the conclusions is wrong.

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

One person can conclude that a painting is ugly another that the painting is beautiful. That is just their subjective opinions and none of them are actually right or wrong.

 

[leibowde84]

It does not say that. It only says the conclusion whether or not God is real is reached by choosing it.

What doesn't say that? We are discussing the existence of God in reality, not our conclusions as to whether God exists.

 

[ArtieE]

It means it is your opinion that I have no emotions,

If you get angry or sad or hurt etc. you have emotions.

no soul

We have no evidence for the existence of a soul.

no feelings

If you get angry or sad or hurt etc. you have feelings.

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.

Makes no sense.

 

[ArtieE]

The existence of God is a matter of belief

No it isn't. Either God exists or he doesn't no matter what you believe.

 

[leibowde84]

No it isn't. Either God exists or he doesn't no matter what you believe.

I don't get why he keeps changing the subject. We are discussing the existence of God, not the validity of belief in God.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

How does that work?

I already explained that, agency is a matter of opinion. That is traditional religion that the existence of the soul is a matter of faith and revelation, which is a form of opinion. And the soul is who somone really is in traditional religion.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

What doesn't say that? We are discussing the existence of God in reality, not our conclusions as to whether God exists.

You are changing the meaning from, reaching the conclusion God exists by choosing on the issue, which choice might just as well turn out that God does not exist, to; creating God by choosing it. In your never ending diatribe of misinformation without having any argumentation whatsoever.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I don't get why he keeps changing the subject. We are discussing the existence of God, not the validity of belief in God.

Maybe you shouldn't change the logic in other people's words, maybe you should just say that I am wrong that one can reach the conclusion about whether or not God exists by choosing the answer. Which of course means that you reject subjectivity entirely.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Love has a physical place inside the brain, it is a reaction to a situation.

You regard love as fact, and you request evidence for God, and you refuse to define truth as emotionally significant fact. It is a very obvious pattern of rejection of subjectivity.

 

[leibowde84]

Maybe you shouldn't change the logic in other people's words, maybe you should just say that I am wrong that one can reach the conclusion about whether or not God exists by choosing the answer. Which of course means that you reject subjectivity entirely.

I never once claimed that "one cannot reach the conclusion about whether or not God exists by choosing the answer", as that is not relevant to this conversation. I have never made any claims about coming to the conclusion about whether or not God exists, and I have repeatedly made this extremely clear and explicit. We aren't discussing the process of coming to a conclusion about God. We are discussing the actual existence of God apart from belief or conclusions; the existence of God the entity.

You constantly make accusations that make no sense and aren't supported by anything except for your misguided interpretations. But, no one here has denied that coming to a conclusion about anything is subjective, as it is completely off topic. We are discussing the existence of God in reality apart from any human contemplation.