Present arguments for atheism

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Nonsense. One definition of "beauty" is: "a combination of qualities, such as shape, colour, or form, that pleases the aesthetic senses, especially the sight." I am an atheist and I find some things beautiful and pleasing to my "aesthetic senses" so how can you say I "reject subjectivity"?What's that go to do with atheism?

Because beauty is rooted in a love for the way something looks, and you objectify love as an electrochemical process in the brain. You regard the existence of love as fact, and then you say beauty is opinion, which can only mean that the word opinion is to convey the fact of what brainprocesses are occurring. My opinion is the painting is beautiful = the fact is love for the way the painting looks exists in my brain. Opinion = fact.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

So if God actually shows up in the flesh and is promptly taken into custody and charged with innumerable crimes against humanity such as genocide as described in the Bible would his existence still be a "matter of opinion"?

The existence of the human spirit and soul is also a matter of opinion.

In regards to Jesus, He said he is God. Does that then prove He is God by saying it, and having a physical body?

 

[ArtieE]

Belief in God comes with normal subjectivity.

Do those who don't believe in your particular god have "abnormal subjectivity"?

It is very evident that people who reject belief in God

And who are you now talking about? Atheists don't "reject" belief in God they just have an absence of it. People who reject belief in God are called anti-theists.

 

[ArtieE]

The existence of the human spirit and soul is also a matter of opinion.

Either this "human spirit and soul" exists or it doesn't. That's a matter of fact.

In regards to Jesus, He said he is God. Does that then prove He is God by saying it, and having a physical body?

For Jesus to "prove" (provide enough evidence to show beyond reasonable doubt) that he was God he would first have to "prove" that this god exists and then "prove" he and this entity was the same entity.

 

[ArtieE]

Because beauty is rooted in a love for the way something looks, and you objectify love as an electrochemical process in the brain. You regard the existence of love as fact

Of course the existence of love is a fact. Love is defined as "a strong feeling of affection" or "great interest and pleasure in something" and it's a fact that people have these.

and then you say beauty is opinion,

Beauty is defined as "a combination of qualities, such as shape, colour, or form, that pleases the aesthetic senses, especially the sight." The existence of beauty is a fact because it's a fact that there are combinations of qualities that pleases the aesthetic senses.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Of course the existence of love is a fact. Love is defined as "a strong feeling of affection" or "great interest and pleasure in something" and it's a fact that people have these.Beauty is defined as "a combination of qualities, such as shape, colour, or form, that pleases the aesthetic senses, especially the sight." The existence of beauty is a fact because it's a fact that there are combinations of qualities that pleases the aesthetic senses.

It is not normal subjectivity.

 

[ArtieE]

It is not normal subjectivity.

Define "normal subjectivity" and "abnormal subjectivity".

 

[Yerda]

Belief in God comes with normal subjectivity. It is very evident that people who reject belief in God have a problem with subjectivity in general, which is shown by that besides not believing in God, they also objectify love and hate, they deny free will, and make good and evil into a matter of fact.

I believed in God when I was a child. At that time I thought there was a real person-like entity governing the universe who created everything and who loved us all. As I grew older my outlooks changed and I lost the certainty and conviction that this was the case. If it is all opinion as you say then I followed my own subjectivity rather than rejecting it. I didn't have a problem with subjectivity - rather I have to acknowledge that my own subjective beliefs, opinions, and choices tell me that what I thought was God is either incoherent or without evidence.

At the same time there are many theists in the world who have different experiences and have reached the conclusion that there is a God. They find the concept coherent and they find the evidence compelling. Do they also reject subjectivity in your opinion?

 

[leibowde84]

I explained that questions about what the agency of a decision is require a chosen answer. I explained how it makes the concept of choosing dysfunction when the answer is forced.

Your reply is that you insist the answer must be forced. Either the conclusion God is real is forced, because of the other conclusion being wrong, or viceversa.

That is not argumentation, that is simply saying is too the answer about what makes the decision turn out A in stead of B must be forced.

Why must it? Well it must because of the dictionary, because that's the way it is. It is claims about authority. But it is shown that the concept of choosing then ceases to function because of contradiction between freedom and force. To which problem you then reply with does not.

Is too forced, does not dysfunction, because you will it, but logic says otherwise.

Why can't you answer the question? Does God exist apart from any mind?

 

[leibowde84]

It's just a circus clown act of contradictions. And now, do the same rules apply to beauty? You say no, which means you have several definitions for objectivity and several definitions for subjectivity. You've got no working conceptual scheme.

The same does apply for beauty.

Whether A thinks that the painting is beautiful is either true or false (objective). Both true and false are valid, but only one is the case for A.
A's judgment of the painting is subjective.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I believed in God when I was a child. At that time I thought there was a real person-like entity governing the universe who created everything and who loved us all. As I grew older my outlooks changed and I lost the certainty and conviction that this was the case. If it is all opinion as you say then I followed my own subjectivity rather than rejecting it. I didn't have a problem with subjectivity - rather I have to acknowledge that my own subjective beliefs, opinions, and choices tell me that what I thought was God is either incoherent or without evidence.

At the same time there are many theists in the world who have different experiences and have reached the conclusion that there is a God. They find the concept coherent and they find the evidence compelling. Do they also reject subjectivity in your opinion?

Objectifying or measuring God, and generally regarding it as a factual issue, is not believing in God, it's not having faith.

And you reject subjectivity, you demonstrated previously.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

The same does apply for beauty.

Whether A thinks that the painting is beautiful is either true or false (objective). Both true and false are valid, but only one is the case for A.
A's judgment of the painting is subjective.

You are pretty sure then I can more or less exchange the word honesty for beauty in what you wrote, maybe changing a few other things as well, and then it would make sense?

 

[Demonslayer]

And you reject subjectivity, you demonstrated previously.

Hey something new from you. You can really beat a dead camel can't you.

 

[Yerda]

Objectifying or measuring God, and generally regarding it as a factual issue, is not believing in God, it's not having faith

And you reject subjectivity, you demonstrated previously.

You are saying that the vast majority of people who claim to believe in God are not believing in God.

So where can we go from here? Every time I post something in an attempt to engage in conversation you dismiss what I have to say on the grounds that I reject subjectivity. I say I don't, but where does that get us?

Is there any hope of a productive exchange between us?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You are saying that the vast majority of people who claim to believe in God are not believing in God.

So where can we go from here? Every time I post something in an attempt to engage in conversation you dismiss what I have to say on the grounds that I reject subjectivity. I say I don't, but where does that get us?

Is there any hope of a productive exchange between us?

People do believe in God, and generally don't regard God as fact. Religion is generally focused on faith, so as that the word faith is almost interchangeable with the word religion, and faith is a form of opinion. The word fact is not interchangeable with the word religion. Also the soul is mostly regarded as not measurable in religion, eventhough we can see people. It makes no sense that people would regard God as fact, and then they would see people but not be able to measure the soul of people. If they regard the soul not as fact, then they would obviously also not regard God as fact. Obviously, in general, religious people regard both the soul and God as matters of faith.

You are just another atheist rejecting subjectivity. Untill you realize you are not above the commonly human head vs heart struggle, and that you have erronuously rejected subjectivity, there is no real exchange.

You present no conceptual scheme for how subjectivity works. There is no exchange when you reject the conceptual scheme I present, and you don't present any alternative.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Hey something new from you. You can really beat a dead camel can't you.

You all know I brought atheism down to it's essential logical error of regarding agency of a decision as a factual issue, thereby rejecting subjectivity entirely, and making the concept of choosing dysfunction. Eventhough it would still be logically possible to be an atheist without committing this error, in practise there would be no widespread atheism without people making this error.

 

[Yerda]

People do believe in God, and generally don't regard God as fact. Religion is generally focused on faith, so as that the word faith is almost interchangeable with the word religion, and faith is a form of opinion. The word fact is not interchangeable with the word religion. Also the soul is mostly regarded as not measurable in religion, eventhough we can see people. It makes no sense that people would regard God as fact, and then they would see people but not be able to measure the soul of people. If they regard the soul not as fact, then they would obviously also not regard God as fact. Obviously, in general, religious people regard both the soul and God as matters of faith.

You are just another atheist rejecting subjectivity. Untill you realize you are not above the commonly human head vs heart struggle, and that you have erronuously rejected subjectivity, there is no real exchange.

You present no conceptual scheme for how subjectivity works. There is no exchange when you reject the conceptual scheme I present, and you don't present any alternative.

Well, thanks for your opinion. I wish you all the best.

 

[Demonslayer]

You all know I brought atheism down to it's essential logical error of regarding agency of a decision as a factual issue, thereby rejecting subjectivity entirely, and making the concept of choosing dysfunction.

Yep, you out-thought us all. I guess I'll give up athesim and start believing that humans are Allah's animated mud puppets.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Yep, you out-thought us all. I guess I'll give up athesim and start believing that humans are Allah's animated mud puppets.

It just means you should take subjectivity seriously, as you have been neglecting it, and belief in God is a natural result of taking subjectivity seriously.

 

[Demonslayer]

It just means you should take subjectivity seriously, as you have been neglecting it, and belief in God is a natural result of taking subjectivity seriously.

I'll believe in God the day you make a post discussing anything other than subjectivity. On that day we shall witness a true miracle!