Present arguments for atheism

[Iti oj]

Typical evolutionist nonsense. This is how for more than a century ever since Darwin, scientists got away with completely ignoring the reality and relevance of freedom in the universe. The evolutionary scientists just pull open a can of their pitbulls to badger the reasonable people.

meme

 

[ArtieE]

Why don't you think about it before replying. The laws of physics allow for futures A and B, then B becomes the present, meaning a choice has been made.

Nonsense. The laws of physics can't make choices.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Nonsense. The laws of physics can't make choices.

Well objects cannot follow the laws of physics, as if the laws of physics are some kind of independent universal law book which objects consult. So the laws of physics are actually what the objects consist of. As laws unto themselves objects have a future (and a past), and this future has alternatives.

And it's not the laws which are doing the choosing, as said about 11 times, it is actually a matter of opinion what the agency of the decisions is. It is totally obvious that your reasoning faculties are shut down. This logical construct 1 works without contradiction 2 is consistent with common discourse and traditional religion.

Your idea is these religious people just randomly fantasize about a soul thingy which can't be seen, like others fantasize about leprechauns. Reality is the logic of choosing cannot function without agency of the decision being regarded as a subjective issue. This is why the the existence of the soul which chooses must be regarded as a matter of faith and revelation.

 

[ArtieE]

Your idea is these religious people just randomly fantasize about a soul thingy which can't be seen, like others fantasize about leprechauns.

That is because different religious people have different fantasies. "The soul, in many religious, philosophical and mythological traditions, is the incorporeal and, in many conceptions, immortalessence of a living thing.[1] According to most of the Abrahamic religions, only human beings have immortal souls. For example, the Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas attributed "soul" (anima) to all organisms but argued that only human souls are immortal.[2] Other religions (most notably Jainism and Hinduism) teach that all biological organisms have souls, while the rest teach that even non-biological entities (such as rivers and mountains) possess souls. This latter belief is called animism.[3]" Wikipedia. Some religions teach that souls reincarnate, some don't. If you religious people at least could agree on the basics regarding this "soul" and show some actual evidence that we have one it would help.

 

[Yerda]

I only have to show you reject subjectivity. And that you don't understand the example of Mozart in the post you reply to, that shows the rejection of subjectivity is very deep indeed.

I give up.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

That is because different religious people have different fantasies. "The soul, in many religious, philosophical and mythological traditions, is the incorporeal and, in many conceptions, immortalessence of a living thing.[1] According to most of the Abrahamic religions, only human beings have immortal souls. For example, the Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas attributed "soul" (anima) to all organisms but argued that only human souls are immortal.[2] Other religions (most notably Jainism and Hinduism) teach that all biological organisms have souls, while the rest teach that even non-biological entities (such as rivers and mountains) possess souls. This latter belief is called animism.[3]" Wikipedia. Some religions teach that souls reincarnate, some don't. If you religious people at least could agree on the basics regarding this "soul" and show some actual evidence that we have one it would help.

The soul is what chooses in the concept of free will. All of these uses you refer to, refer to the soul choosing. And then usually the soul is judged, meaning you as the owner of your choices is judged by God. It all makes perfect sense. And as said it's the only way the concept of free will functions, by making agency into a matter of opinion.

You've got nothing, you've only got proof that atheists mindlessly reject subjectivity, as is demonstrated by posting what you do.

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 any atheist here cannot even comprehend this as a proposition, let alone agree with it, statistically that does mean something in respect to all atheists rejecting subjectivity.

 

[ArtieE]

The soul is what chooses in the concept of free will. All of these uses you refer to, refer to the soul choosing.

And what makes the "soul" choose what it chooses? What does it base the choice on? Organisms don't need "souls" to make choices. As my brain is hard-wired with a survival instinct I don't need an independent "soul" to "choose" to do things that is good for my survival.

"Free will seems a matter of mind, not soul"

"Across the board, even if they believed in the concept of a soul, people in a new study ascribed free will based on down-to-Earth criteria: Did the actor in question have the capacity to make an intentional and independent choice? The study suggests that while grand metaphysical views of the universe remain common, they have little to do with how people assess each other’s behavior."

"people have a perception of free will and culpability that is compatible with brain science in that it does not depend on a spiritual underpinning."
https://news.brown.edu/articles/2014/05/freewill

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

And what makes the "soul" choose what it chooses? What does it base the choice on? Organisms don't need "souls" to make choices. As my brain is hard-wired with a survival instinct I don't need an independent "soul" to "choose" to do things that is good for my survival.

"Free will seems a matter of mind, not soul"

"Across the board, even if they believed in the concept of a soul, people in a new study ascribed free will based on down-to-Earth criteria: Did the actor in question have the capacity to make an intentional and independent choice? The study suggests that while grand metaphysical views of the universe remain common, they have little to do with how people assess each other’s behavior."

"people have a perception of free will and culpability that is compatible with brain science in that it does not depend on a spiritual underpinning."
https://news.brown.edu/articles/2014/05/freewill

The scientists you reference are crooked. They counter experiments in which it was suggested free will is not real, and the result was a higher degree of cheaters, liars and anti social of the group who disbelieved free will.

The argument of the scientists is that people are sophisticated to deal with contradictory views. That if science says free will has a logic of being forced, and people accept it, that these people are still capable in daily life to talk in terms of several possible results.

But in the larger picture nazism and communism reject free will to a high degree, and they are definitely murderous. Eventhough I have no doubt a nazi or a communist in daily life is capable to describe in terms of having alternative futures available, the anti free will ideology still manipulates their actions towards murdering a lot.

And....have you outsourced your thinking to science? You can think for yourself and see free will is real and that it requires that agency of the decisions is regarded as a subjective issue.

 

[McBell]

Typical evolutionist nonsense. This is how for more than a century ever since Darwin, scientists got away with completely ignoring the reality and relevance of freedom in the universe. The evolutionary scientists just pull open a can of their pitbulls to badger the reasonable people.

Getting deeper and deeper.
You certainly are a master at shoveling.

 

[McBell]

I give up.

I never even tried.
I am merely wondering how long he will continue to ignore that fact and stop dictating to me my argument.

Still, I cannot help but wonder who he is trying to convince, us or himself.
Of course, he acts more like a bot than an actual human member.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I never even tried.
I am merely wondering how long he will continue to ignore that fact and stop dictating to me my argument.

Still, I cannot help but wonder who he is trying to convince, us or himself.
Of course, he acts more like a bot than an actual human member.

Your attitude is your argument. You actually pay a lot of attention to crafting and conveying that attitude. Phony.

 

[McBell]

Your attitude is your argument. You actually pay a lot of attention to crafting and conveying that attitude. Phony.

Still dictating to me my argument...
Sad really.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Still dictating to me my argument...
Sad really.

Does anybody believe Mestemia feels the sadness he speaks of feeling?

 

[ArtieE]

The scientists you reference are crooked. They counter experiments in which it was suggested free will is not real, and the result was a higher degree of cheaters, liars and anti social of the group who disbelieved free will.

Nonsense. People, even those who believe we have souls, simply don't think having "free will" requires having a "soul".

But in the larger picture nazism and communism reject free will to a high degree, and they are definitely murderous.

According to you the "souls" of Hitler and Stalin just used their "free will" to "choose to" murder all those millions. Right?

And....have you outsourced your thinking to science? You can think for yourself and see free will is real and that it requires that agency of the decisions is regarded as a subjective issue.

I can think for myself and don't need a "soul" with "free will" to make my choices for me.

 

[McBell]

Does anybody believe Mestemia feels the sadness he speaks of feeling?

It is sad that your argument is so weak you must dictate to others what their counter arguments must be.
I would say that your tactic is nothing more than a glorified strawman.
Thus meaning you have no real argument at all.
Just a bunch of fluffy window dressing you hide under glim and glamour.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Nonsense. People, even those who believe we have souls, simply don't think having "free will" requires having a "soul".According to you the "souls" of Hitler and Stalin just used their "free will" to "choose to" murder all those millions. Right?I can think for myself and don't need a "soul" with "free will" to make my choices for me.

You've got no argument.

Given the material conditions as they were, Mozart, Hitler and Stalin could have turned out several different ways.

You point to the material as the explanation, that makes no sense, as the material allows for several possible results.

To choose the answer about what the agency of the decisions is makes sense.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

It is sad that your argument is so weak you must dictate to others what their counter arguments must be.
I would say that your tactic is nothing more than a glorified strawman.
Thus meaning you have no real argument at all.
Just a bunch of fluffy window dressing you hide under glim and glamour.

Who believes this sadness of Mestemia is real?

 

[ArtieE]

Given the material conditions as they were, Mozart, Hitler and Stalin could have turned out several different ways.

According to you Mozart, Hitler and Stalin's "souls" had "free will" and "chose" to do what they did. What do you think a hypothetical person without a "soul" would have chosen? Would he have a free will and be capable of choosing anything or would he just be a vegetable?

 

[Yerda]

I never even tried.

I felt it might be worthwhile to attempt to understand and to engage in conversation. My mistake.

 

[The Sparrow]

Lots have given their answers, and as a new member I feel compelled to give mine.
Assuming we are talking about the Abrahamic God, I simply find no reason to believe
a) he/she exists
b) if he/she does, that he/she gives a damn about us
c) that when I die I am anything but worm food.

I'd like to believe in supernatural entities, and I'd like to think I could enter heaven and live in eternal bliss and party with those who have gone before me, but I can find no reason to. And I can't force myself to believe when I don't.