Present arguments for atheism

[leibowde84]

Obviously if you throw an apple, it is a fact that you throw the apple. How you throw an apple, well that is also fact.
It is obviously when you bring in how to choose to throw the apple that subjectivity comes in. Why did you choose the one way, in stead of the other. You could throw either way, or not at all. Subjectivity is obviously about agency, and you are simply providing more and more proof that you reject subjectivity.

What proof are you referring to? You cite questions as if they are claims, for crying out loud.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

LOL. You cited a question that I asked you after you said that the existence of God depended on our conclusion as to whether God exists. Obviously you don't quite get the meaning of the word "suggest" either. Do you understand what a question is? Because, I was asking for clarification on YOUR beliefs (hence the question, not claim/statement).

Maybe you haven't learned this yet, but here is what a question is:

ques·tion
ˈkwesCH(ə)n/
noun

1. a sentence worded or expressed so as to elicit information.
   "we hope this leaflet has been helpful in answering your questions"
   synonyms: inquiry, query;
   interrogation
   "please answer my question"

It's not the case, you changed the meaning. And still now you stick to the meaning that choosing the conclusion whether or not God is real, means to create God, if you so choose that God is real.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

What proof are you referring to? You cite questions as if they are claims, for crying out loud.

It's just another atheist trying to weasle away from freedom, choosing, where it obviously provides for the best explanation.

 

[leibowde84]

You said you searched the word truth, but you did not actually search then.

Nope. You are merely wrong, but, as usual, too stubborn to admit it. Please see post #522 where I provided the definition of "truth" after performing a google search for the common meaning of the term.

Btw, keep in mind that you have failed to provide even a sliver of support for your claim about the meaning of the word "truth".

 

[Deathbydefault]

Obviously if you throw an apple, it is a fact that you throw the apple. How you throw an apple, well that is also fact.
It is obviously when you bring in how to choose to throw the apple that subjectivity comes in. Why did you choose the one way, in stead of the other. You could throw either way, or not at all. Subjectivity is obviously about agency, and you are simply providing more and more proof that you reject subjectivity.

You, yet again, have not gotten my point.
The physical action is objective, 100% correct. Yes.
But it's the reasoning that is subjective.
The subjective part about a man throwing an apple is why he threw the effing apple.
Not how.

 

[leibowde84]

It's just another atheist trying to weasle away from freedom, choosing, where it obviously provides for the best explanation.

That is merely your opinion (subjective). You have to actually provide verifiable support for your claim, which you have failed to do, or else is it merely an unsubstantiated, "empty" claim.

 

[leibowde84]

It's just another atheist trying to weasle away from freedom, choosing, where it obviously provides for the best explanation.

I am not an atheist, btw. Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You, yet again, have not gotten my point.
The physical action is objective, 100% correct. Yes.
But it's the reasoning that is subjective.
The subjective part about a man throwing an apple is why he threw the effing apple.
Not how.

Well that is still not to the point. It is the agency of the decision which is a subjective issue, and that it is a subjective issue means one can only reach a conclusion about what the agency of the decision is, by choosing it.

That is a logical construct. A decisions has at least 2 possible outcomes, and then to reach a conclusion about the agency of that decision is, then you need a new decision with at least 2 possible outcomes as well.

In essence you still only have wordsoup. And the ambiguity in this wordsoup is convenient for making things like "reasons" into a factual issue. You have connected the word subjectivity to the word reasons, but there is no transparant logic in it.

It is exceedingly obvious that to have at least 2 valid answers, any of which can be chosen, that this is not how facts are arrived at. Facts are obviously forced, they require an exact 1 to 1 representation. I have therefore, an extremely clear distinction between fact and opinion, between subjectivity and objectivity. Where what you have is just words stuck together.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I am not an atheist, btw. Do you ever get tired of being wrong?

I wasn't referring to you there, I was referring to deathbydefault.

 

[leibowde84]

It's not the case, you changed the meaning. And still now you stick to the meaning that choosing the conclusion whether or not God is real, means to create God, if you so choose that God is real.

No. You made that claim, repeatedly actually. I asked the question to clarify your views, as I find the position to be illogical. Why on earth would you think that asking a question would provide my belief? That's stupid.

 

[leibowde84]

I wasn't referring to you there, I was referring to deathbydefault.

Why did you reply to my comment then?

 

[Deathbydefault]

Well that is still not to the point. It is the agency of the decision which is a subjective issue, and that it is a subjective issue means one can only reach a conclusion about what the agency of the decision is, by choosing it.

That is a logical construct. A decisions has at least 2 possible outcomes, and then to reach a conclusion about the agency of that decision is, then you need a new decision with at least 2 possible outcomes as well.

In essence you still only have wordsoup. And the ambiguity in this wordsoup is convenient for making things like "reasons" into a factual issue. You have connected the word subjectivity to the word reasons, but there is no transparant logic in it.

It is exceedingly obvious that to have at least 2 valid answers, any of which can be chosen, that this is not how facts are arrived at. Facts are obviously forced, they require an exact 1 to 1 representation. I have therefore, an extremely clear distinction between fact and opinion, between subjectivity and objectivity. Where what you have is just words stuck together.

I do not accept your definition as it is not correctly supported.
So almost all of what you've said in this post means nothing to me.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I do not accept your definition as it is not correctly supported.
So almost all of what you've said in this post means nothing to me.

You just have to deal with the logic of choosing. The fact that some phenomenon can turn out one way or another.

The alternatives presented to the traditional logic of the spirit choosing, and the existence of the spirit is a matter of faith and revelation, are:
- free will is an illusion in the mind
- free will is not real
- free will is real, but it has a logic of being cause and effect, being forced (also known as compatibilism, which is the most popular theory now in science and philosophy)
- every option in a choice signifies a different universe, multiverse
(edited to add:
- that an event can turn out several different ways means that it is random, and therefore lacking in emotion (blind pittiless and indifferent))

The traditional solution is obviously the only one that is a real solution. It simply works practically in daily life. A simple logical construct that functions without internal contradictions, and without contradictions with the rest of regular knowledge. It is totally obvious that words such as beauty, love, God, soul, are terms belonging to this construct.

The other proposed solutions are obviously just incoherent intellectualizing, which cannot be applied practically.

 

[Erebus]

Perhaps it depends upon what we're trying to know and to what extent we're satisfied with incomplete knowledge? Perhaps some truths are knowable?
Are you convinced that that's true? You certainly sound convinced.

You make a fair point here. We have to find something that we hold to be true, even if our truth is only that we're fallible creatures. Perhaps I should clarify my position then. When it comes to deciding what can and can't be said to objectively exist, I'm not convinced we can ever speak with absolute confidence. This includes our ideas about both gods and the physical universe (I may be a brain in a jar experiencing a simulation for example). The thing that I am perhaps the most certain of is that I know almost nothing. I suspect that everybody else is in the same boat. I also suspect that the vast majority of what is exists outside of our capacity to understand it.
From a more personal point of view, I've seen too many people on this forum claim to know "the truth" about existence. I've seen both theists and atheists argue from what they seem to believe is a position of absolute knowledge. It makes any further discussion impossible, since one party has already decided that any disagreement with their position is tantamount to lying. I jumped to the conclusion that this was the angle you were going for, so I apologise for being dismissive.

 

[leibowde84]

You just have to deal with the logic of choosing. The fact that some phenomenon can turn out one way or another.

The alternatives presented to the traditional logic of the spirit choosing, and the existence of the spirit is a matter of faith and revelation, are:
- free will is an illusion in the mind
- free will is not real
- free will is real, but it has a logic of being cause and effect, being forced (also known as compatibilism, which is the most popular theory now in science and philosophy)
- every option in a choice signifies a different universe, multiverse

The traditional solution is obviously the only one that is a real solution. It simply works practically in daily life. A simple logical construct that functions without internal contradictions, and without contradictions with the rest of regular knowledge. It is totally obvious that words such as beauty, love, God, soul, are terms belonging to this construct.

The other proposed solutions are obviously just incoherent intellectualizing, which cannot be applied practically.

If it's so obvious, why are you unable to provide verifiable support for any of these claims.

We provided support that your claims about word usage were inaccurate. I even provided the Google definition after you asked me to in post #522. You inherently agreed that it was valid before looking at it yourself for an indication of common usage.

 

[TheGunShoj]

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.

Belief is not a choice. We don't choose what we believe.

 

[TheGunShoj]

Why don't you just google truth.

The fact that you are unwilling to simply provide a definition which is as easy as googling it as you say, that supports the argument you are making is a glaring admission that you know you can't because you are using an irrelevant definition that no one else would ever accept.

 

[TheGunShoj]

Well, that wasn't a very accurate representation of the discussion.
.

Now that I'm actually read up on what's been happening in the thread. Yes, yes it was a perfect representation of what people were saying.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

If it's so obvious, why are you unable to provide verifiable support for any of these claims.

We provided support that your claims about word usage were inaccurate. I even provided the Google definition after you asked me to in post #522. You inherently agreed that it was valid before looking at it yourself for an indication of common usage.

That you insist absolutely that there is no subjective element to the word truth, just clearly says that you reject subjectivity.

What if the beauty of some mountains is the truth? Why did you go to the mountains, well the truth is that I find the mountains beautiful.

Then it means the fact is that my opinion is that the mountains are beautiful. You cannot straight refer to opinion as truth, because you define truth as fact only, so then you have to refer to the fact of the opinion.

It is obvious rejection of subjectivity. And this is just one example in a pattern of you consistently rejecting subjectivity.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Belief is not a choice. We don't choose what we believe.

See, all you people reject subjectivity.