Present arguments for atheism

[Shad]

I am saying, it is just a debating tactic of Leibowde to provide work for me, and he will take no consequence whatsoever from me showing where he said those things.

You slandered him until you can provide evidence to back up your statement. Whine about work when you are not the one making such statements about other people. Typical cop out.

I think I found your issue. You like to make grand claims but hate showing the work behind these claims.

 

[s13ep]

This is a definition. Provide an example.

TimeCube!

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

This is a definition. Provide an example.

How you like the painting?
Choose between beautiful and ugly (expression of emotion with free will, thus choosing)
Beautiful is chosen
Beauty is a love for the way the painting looks, love is agency of a decision.

Subjectivity = to choose about what it is that chooses, resulting in an opinion.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You slandered him until you can provide evidence to back up your statement. Whine about work when you are not the one making such statements about other people. Typical cop out.

I think I found your issue. You like to make grand claims but hate showing the work behind these claims.

All these evolutionists and atheists always go off on some totally ridiculous side-issue like imaginary lying, because they've got no argumentation whatsoever to the point at issue.

 

[McBell]

TimeCube!

Please tell us you are not planning on polluting this thread with that nonsense....

Though it does fit into the theme of this thread: Complete bull **** with nothing but irrelevant bull **** in an attempt to support the original bull ****.

 

[McBell]

All these evolutionists and atheists always go off on some totally ridiculous side-issue like imaginary lying, because they've got no argumentation whatsoever to the point at issue.

Another bold faced lie.
At least you are consistent.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Another bold faced lie.
At least you are consistent.

You've got nothing mestemia. And anytime you try to divert attention away to some nonsense, I will have to take it back again to the argumentation.

Regarding truth as interchangeable with fact, defining subjectivity in relation to observations unique to the observer in stead of freedom, requesting evidence for God and the soul, denying free will, rejecting creationism / intelligent design theory, asserting emotions are electrochemical processes in the brain or like softwareprogramming on the brain hardware, explicitly rejecting the logic of reaching a conclusion about what the agency of a decision is by choosing the answer. And so on, and so on.

 

[Yerda]

All these evolutionists and atheists always go off on some totally ridiculous side-issue like imaginary lying, because they've got no argumentation whatsoever to the point at issue.

I suspect this is due to no-one having the slightest clue what you are talking about.

 

[McBell]

You've got nothing mestemia. And anytime you try to divert attention away to some nonsense, I will have to take it back again to the argumentation.

You are not paying any attention to what is posted, are you?
I never claimed to have anything.
You tried repeatedly to dictate to me what I am arguing.
Then completely ignored when you where told you are wrong.

You are nothing to me but a plaything for boredom relief.

Regarding truth as interchangeable with fact, defining subjectivity in relation to observations unique to the observer in stead of freedom, requesting evidence for God and the soul, denying free will, rejecting creationism / intelligent design theory, asserting emotions are electrochemical processes in the brain or like softwareprogramming on the brain hardware, explicitly rejecting the logic of reaching a conclusion about what the agency of a decision is by choosing the answer. And so on, and so on.

blah blah blah.
More garbage you use to deny subjectivity.

Are you ever gonna try a new tactic?

 

[McBell]

I suspect this is due to no-one having the slightest clue what you are talking about.

He has told a minimum two bold faced lies in this thread alone.
He just hates being called out on it.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I suspect this is due to no-one having the slightest clue what you are talking about.

It's nonsense, most of you have demonstrated to understand the logic of it, and then rejected it. That is just more debating tactics to say you don't understand, as the rules for subjectivity are simpler than the rules of tic tac toe.

Mozart could just as well have become a drunk scratching his bottom all day, not making any music. Given the material conditions, it can turn out several different ways, and the difference is the spirit. It is the agency of the decisions that are made, and this is a subjective issue, meaning one can only reach a conclusion about what it is by choosing the answer.

That is why we have freedom of opinion and religion in democracy, because questions about what the agency of a decision is can only be arrived at by choosing the answer. If it were a matter of fact, then the government would just enforce the facts, as it does with lots of facts.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You are not paying any attention to what is posted, are you?
I never claimed to have anything.
You tried repeatedly to dictate to me what I am arguing.
Then completely ignored when you where told you are wrong.

You are nothing to me but a plaything for boredom relief.


blah blah blah.
More garbage you use to deny subjectivity.

Are you ever gonna try a new tactic?

It's not a tactic, it's argumentation.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

He has told a minimum two bold faced lies in this thread alone.
He just hates being called out on it.

Pure fantasy from you again.

 

[Cap'n MacDougal]

It's an example of you rejecting any and all subjectivity. When you reject the definition then you reject all of it.

Howdy!

I did not reject your definition, but rather; your definition given in place of an example. I appreciate that you would like to repeatedly share your definition, however still request an example for reference.

 

[McBell]

Pure fantasy from you again.

And here is yet another example why you cannot be taken seriously.

 

[McBell]

It's not a tactic, it's argumentation.

It is a tactic.
Your inability to understand that does not change the fact.

 

[ArtieE]

How you like the painting?
Choose between beautiful and ugly

I can't choose to find a painting beautiful or ugly. I can't go to the Mona Lisa and choose to find the painting ugly.

Beautiful is chosen

Of course it isn't. If I find a woman beautiful I can't choose to find her ugly.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Howdy!

I did not reject your definition, but rather; your definition given in place of an example. I appreciate that you would like to repeatedly share your definition, however still request an example for reference.

An example was just provided in the topic after you asked for one.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I can't choose to find a painting beautiful or ugly. I can't go to the Mona Lisa and choose to find the painting ugly.Of course it isn't. If I find a woman beautiful I can't choose to find her ugly.

So, you reject subjectivity, plain and simple.

You can certainly decide that a woman you normally find beautiful is ugly, for the most bizarre reasons like the way she eats a sandwhich. You could then shore up your judgement, to deny this peeve you have about the way she eats the sandwhich, so you see her as beautiful again.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

And here is yet another example why you cannot be taken seriously.

Mestemia just only every posts rubbish that's got nothing to do with the argumentation.