• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Present arguments for atheism

M

Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Well-Known Member
ArtieE said:
Either God is real or he isn't. One of the conclusions is wrong.
Click to expand...

Either the painting is ugly or beautiful, one of the conclusion is wrong. That's obviously a nonsense.

It doesn't work that way, the same reason why both conclusions the painting is ugly and beautiful are valid, is the reason both conclusions God is real, and God is not real are valid.

Beauty and ugly applies to agency of a decision, love and hate. Agency is what makes a decision turn out the way it does. That either conclusion beauty and ugly can be reached, means that if beautiful is chosen that it is equally valid that the love for the painting is real, as it is to say it is not real. If the existence of the love is fact, then this factual love would force the conclusion beautiful, and the conclusion ugly could not be reached.

And we can see that the term God is also defined in terms of agency. Some of the most well known titles for God, God the creator, and God the holy spirit, refer to agency. You can see that the term spirit refers to agency, because spirit is also defined in human free will as what does the job of choosing.

You simply have no idea at all where exactly the line is between fact and opinion. That line is at a decision. It is a fact that a decision is made, what the options are, what the result of it is, but it is opinion what it is that makes the decision turn out the way it does.

This is also why freedom of religion is in the laws. If it were a matter of fact issue, then in principle the fact would simply be enforced by the government, like all other facts. In the case of communism, scientific socialism, the fact is then that God does not exist, hence religion is outlawed, and in the case of a theocracy, the fact is then that God exists, therefore people are forced to accept God exists.
 
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Mohammad Nur Syamsu said:
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.
Click to expand...
Why is it so hard for you to understand that we aren't discussing the conclusion that God exists, but, instead, are discussing God's independent existence.
 
M

Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Well-Known Member
leibowde84 said:
Can you define "truth", since you obviously use your own definition of the term?
Click to expand...

I already said many times, truth mostly refers to an emotionally significant fact. If it is not emotionally significant, I would just use the word fact, if it is emotionally significant I would use the term truth. And in general everybody uses the word truth that way, except for a lot of atheists, scientists, etc.

It is a fact that there are 5 sheep in the meadow, it is the truth that there are 5 sheep in the meadow. Very obviously these 2 statements differ in conveying emotion.
 
M

Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Well-Known Member
leibowde84 said:
Why is it so hard for you to understand that we aren't discussing the conclusion that God exists, but, instead, are discussing God's independent existence.
Click to expand...

I don't want any part of your mess at all. My logic is to reach the conclusion whether or not God exists by choosing it.

Why do you insist on changing what I say, in stead of just saying I am wrong?
 
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Mohammad Nur Syamsu said:
Either the painting is ugly or beautiful, one of the conclusion is wrong. That's obviously a nonsense.

It doesn't work that way, the same reason why both conclusions the painting is ugly and beautiful are valid, is the reason both conclusions God is real, and God is not real are valid.

Beauty and ugly applies to agency of a decision, love and hate. Agency is what makes a decision turn out the way it does. That either conclusion beauty and ugly can be reached, means that if beautiful is chosen that it is equally valid that the love for the painting is real, as it is to say it is not real. If the existence of the love is fact, then this factual love would force the conclusion beautiful, and the conclusion ugly could not be reached.

And we can see that the term God is also defined in terms of agency. Some of the most well known titles for God, God the creator, and God the holy spirit, refer to agency. You can see that the term spirit refers to agency, because spirit is also defined in human free will as what does the job of choosing.

You simply have no idea at all where exactly the line is between fact and opinion. That line is at a decision. It is a fact that a decision is made, what the options are, what the result of it is, but it is opinion what it is that makes the decision turn out the way it does.

This is also why freedom of religion is in the laws. If it were a matter of fact issue, then in principle the fact would simply be enforced by the government, like all other facts. In the case of communism, scientific socialism, the fact is then that God does not exist, hence religion is outlawed, and in the case of a theocracy, the fact is then that God exists, therefore people are forced to accept God exists.
Click to expand...
Again, you are confused. No one except for you is discussing the conclusion that God does or does not exist. We are discussing God's independent existence, not our conclusion/belief about it.
 
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Mohammad Nur Syamsu said:
I already said many times, truth mostly refers to an emotionally significant fact. If it is not emotionally significant, I would just use the word fact, if it is emotionally significant I would use the term truth. And in general everybody uses the word truth that way, except for a lot of atheists, scientists, etc.

It is a fact that there are 5 sheep in the meadow, it is the truth that there are 5 sheep in the meadow. Very obviously these 2 statements differ in conveying emotion.
Click to expand...
According to every source I have looked at, you are dead wrong. Can you support this claim with a source that defines it in the same way, as I am a theist (Christian) and I have never heard the term "truth" used in this way.

Here is the most commonly used definition for theists and atheists alike. It is also how the term is being used in this thread:

"The property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality."
 
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Mohammad Nur Syamsu said:
I already said many times, truth mostly refers to an emotionally significant fact. If it is not emotionally significant, I would just use the word fact, if it is emotionally significant I would use the term truth. And in general everybody uses the word truth that way, except for a lot of atheists, scientists, etc.

It is a fact that there are 5 sheep in the meadow, it is the truth that there are 5 sheep in the meadow. Very obviously these 2 statements differ in conveying emotion.
Click to expand...
Or maybe just a source where the term is used in the way you describe. I've searched, and I can't find a single example.
 
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Mohammad Nur Syamsu said:
It is a fact that there are 5 sheep in the meadow, it is the truth that there are 5 sheep in the meadow. Very obviously these 2 statements differ in conveying emotion.
Click to expand...
both of these sentences express that there are, in actuality, 5 sheep in the medow. Where are you getting an emotional difference?
 
M

Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Well-Known Member
leibowde84 said:
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.
Click to expand...

It is just nonsense... In dismissing it, you argued that the act of choosing the conclusion that God is real, is what makes God real. That is misrepresentation. And now you continue with that baloney. You are in fact saying that reaching the conclusion God is real by choosing it, is wrong.
 
M

Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Well-Known Member
ArtieE said:
How can strong atheists possibly reject subjectivity when they SUBJECTIVELY believe God doesn't exist?
Click to expand...

They can be atheists by choosing the conclusion God does not exist, or theycan simply not choose on the matter. But atheists require to be forced on the issue by evidence.
 
A

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
Mohammad Nur Syamsu said:
They can be atheists by choosing the conclusion God does not exist, or theycan simply not choose on the matter. But atheists require to be forced on the issue by evidence.
Click to expand...
Can you explain how strong atheists can possibly be against subjectivity while at the same time SUBJECTIVELY believe that God doesn't exist?
 
Deathbydefault

Deathbydefault

Apistevist Asexual Atheist
Mohammad Nur Syamsu said:
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.
Click to expand...

You completely ignored the rest of my post, and my entire point.
You hear (read) only what you want to.
Your bigoted mind seems unable to comprehend the possibility of you being wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top