Present arguments for atheism

[Cap'n MacDougal]

I'm just referring to life in general and the difference between a living planet (Earth) and a dead one (Venus). So I guess you'd say I'm referring to life as a biological processes even though I find such a definition a little disparaging . And I'm sorry to hear about your friend's son.

What's up man?

Clearly, the conditions on dead planets have not been, to our knowledge, capable of supporting (cue Star Trek theme...) life as we know it. Perhaps there is a planet somewhere, I honestly have no idea. Even if we located intelligent life elsewhere, I'm a bit lost as to how that pertains to the Divine. Or, existence of Divine, or... You'll have to help me a bit here.
Why does a *strict* biological processes definition disparage you?
Thanks! I talked to my buddy today, his son is on the mend. He is, in fact, out of a coma and not a vegetable! Although, apparently, he says quite a few things which make no sense. Understandable, I think.

 

[Valjean]

I don't understand this 'subjectivity' thing. I understand subjective to mean something personal -- a gut feeling, familiarity, a hallucination.
Subjective feelings are only feelings. They're not facts. Everyone's subjective reality is different. Subjectivity has no place in a discussion of factual issues.

 

[Deathbydefault]

I don't understand this 'subjectivity' thing. I understand subjective to mean something personal -- a gut feeling, familiarity, a hallucination. Subjective feelings are only feelings. They're not facts. They have no place in a discussion of real facts.

Subjectivity is defined as opinions or feelings that constitute personal interactions with something.
You can understand it defined here, for basics. There are many sites that go into much greater and rather pointless detail.

It's lesser form (if we're talking levels) would be "opinion".
It's opposite is objectivity, defined in a lesser form as "fact".

 

[Valjean]

Exactly. Why are subjective opinions relevant here?

 

[Deathbydefault]

Hm, it's a matter of what the subject is.
Actually it's more dependent on whether or not evidence is required.

If we were to talk science then I want objectivity.
If we're discussing what our favorite color is and why, I want subjectivity.

 

[Deathbydefault]

In a shorter response, they're not relevant at all in an argumentative thread such as this.

 

[Valjean]

Understood.
So what is Mohammad's obsession with subjectivity all about?

No I say atheists reject subjectivity because they request evidence for God and the soul, they regard love as electrochemistry in the brain, they regard truth as interchangeable with fact...

Yes, we request evidence for God, and if truth is not fact then what is it, a gut feeling, a hallucination?

 

[Deathbydefault]

To explain that it would take quite a while.
I'll give you the short version for boredom prevention purposes.

He basically has some self entitled definition for subjectivity that is based in spirituality.
He feels as though this definition can give rise to opinions becoming facts in some strange way.
From that he tries to substitute his definition in as a type of 'I win because I say I win' method.
He will neither admit to being wrong, nor will he accept any definition other than his own.
By this, his obsession with winning (or rather, his hatred of being wrong) is shown.

 

[Cap'n MacDougal]

To explain that it would take quite a while.
I'll give you the short version for boredom prevention purposes.

He basically has some self entitled definition for subjectivity that is based in spirituality.
He feels as though this definition can give rise to opinions becoming facts in some strange way.
From that he tries to substitute his definition in as a type of 'I win because I say I win' method.
He will neither admit to being wrong, nor will he accept any definition other than his own.
By this, his obsession with winning (or rather, his hatred of being wrong) is shown.

He's Charlie Sheen!

 

[Cap'n MacDougal]

I don't understand this 'subjectivity' thing. I understand subjective to mean something personal -- a gut feeling, familiarity, a hallucination.
Subjective feelings are only feelings. They're not facts. Everyone's subjective reality is different. Subjectivity has no place in a discussion of real facts.

I'm with you. I don't see a benefit to arguing that we all experience falling from 50' differently when discussing the fact that we all fall at the same rate. In a vacuum, of course.

 

[Unification]

its not about you, its the plethora of deities and the mountain of different views on them.
i have already asked you several questions you only answered one.
most importantly what evidence do you believe suggest god.

what do you consider evidence for god? whats your opinion on the nature of the bible. the nature of sin and forgiveness? you already said your not a yec.


the bible alone is enough to disprove God , its illogical, contradicts itself, contradicts science and history and is filled with immoral actions . if you don't think the bible is the infallible word of god then why believe in that god in the first place.

the topic needs parameters fr depth and detail.

That would be irrational though. It's only illogical the way it's "objectively" interpretated by society.

Because it contradicts history, doesn't mean it's about history. If it's about history, if there is "God," who is to say that the mind of "God" didn't name all of the animals Adam, Eve, Abraham, Lot, etc. And that all the tribes are referring to animal species, and cells splitting/evolving taking different paths during evolution?

Ie: it's objective, accepted rational belief that a meteorite killed off the dinosaurs. The bible says Ammonites killed off the "giants." Who is to say that the bible isn't referring to the specie of Ammonites, and that giants are referring to dinosaurs in which Ammonites killed/poisoned dinosaurs? Could the "subjective" and "minority" be 100% truth? Truth is truth, regardless if there is no evidence or its not aware in a human's mind.

Because it is filled with immoral actions, doesn't mean it's referring to literal immoral actions. The bible could very well be objective as in everything about the book could be referring to the human brain and mind, which every single human being that has ever existed has.

Because a book exists that describes "God" in twisted ways when viewed literally, doesn't make there no "God."

"God" could have had a bible penned and translated, to deceive mankind... When really if there was "God," maybe "God" loves and favors one who actually uses the rational mind given to them. Maybe "God" would love and favor the one who doesn't rely or believe in all of the lies, because the human being was formed in the womb and equipped with everything that they need internally.

Because "God" is commonly attached to all sorts of subjective religious beliefs that vary immensely, doesn't mean they have anything to do with "God."

Obviously, it's not a literal historical book, therefore if there is "God," "God" didn't do anything immoral.

"Atheists" are well at pointing out everything that "God" is not.

 

[Cap'n MacDougal]

Truth is truth, regardless if there is no evidence or its not aware in a human's mind.

What in the **** does that mean? Sorry, that's a weird statement. Would you be able to provide an example of a truth, of which you're aware without your mind, and is completely devoid of any evidentiary support?

 

[Unification]

What in the **** does that mean? Sorry, that's a weird statement. Would you be able to provide an example of a truth, of which you're aware without your mind, and is completely devoid of any evidentiary support?

No apology is necessary, no offense is taken.

Everything that an individual and/or the human race does not currently know that is true, is already present, evident, and true. . just hasn't been revealed, been made aware into the individual mind and/or the minds of the human race. It is latent. Present without manifestation. Untapped. Unrealized. Hidden. Locked up.

If ours minds were removed, and our ability to think were to be removed... there would still be evidence and truths present. It would be pure observation without thinking or judging. The test would be in and of itself, to just be and observe evidence without the mind. Where there is no evidence within the mind(s), there still remains evidence.

In your opinion, does a human being need a mind to be aware?

The human being has 5 senses,
Sight, hearing, touch, taste, smell... And all 5 of those don't require the mind to function.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Understood.
So what is Mohammad's obsession with subjectivity all about?
Yes, we request evidence for God, and if truth is not fact then what is it, a gut feeling, a hallucination?

It's about deriving the general rules of how subjectivity works from common discourse statements like "the painting is beautiful". From common discourse it can be derived that the basic logic of subjectivity is to choose about what it is that chooses.

So there are 2 rules for a proper subjective term, 1 it does the job of choosing (making a decision turn out A in stead B), 2 only by a way choosing can it be identified (expression of emotion with free will, thus choosing).

The soul for example is a proper subjective term, becaus it is defined in terms of making a decision turn out the way it does, and the existence of it is a matter of faith.

And as you can see atheists generally reject subjectivity, for the reason that it is not objectivity. Atheists compete objectivity against subjectivity to the complete destruction of subjectivity.

 

[Deathbydefault]

And as you can see atheists generally reject subjectivity, for the reason that it is not objectivity. Atheists compete objectivity against subjectivity to the complete destruction of subjectivity.

For the thousandth time, this is not true. You have no physical evidence this is true.
We don't compete any such things, they have separate places in our lives.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

For the thousandth time, this is not true. You have no physical evidence this is true.
We don't compete any such things, they have separate places in our lives.

It's a nonsense. He was just agreeing that atheists request evidence for God.

Also, you and Mestemia have simply explicitly stated that subjectivity as I have explained it, is wrong, and that you reject it.

 

[Deathbydefault]

It's a nonsense. He was just agreeing that atheists request evidence for God.

Also, you and Mestemia have simply explicitly stated that subjectivity as I have explained it, is wrong, and that you reject it.

Incorrect on all accounts.
By "they have separate places in our lives" I mean that they should not get confused for one another.
If someone wants an atheist to believe in God they will need evidence.
If someone is going to claim God is real, they'll need evidence.
We can't just accept something as true on the basis of fallacies and flaws in evidence.

I can't reject it, though I would like to (it'd make life easier).
If someone had the ability to reject subjectivity they would be the same a flesh robot.
As far as I can tell, there aren't any flesh robots on this site.

 

[McBell]

Also, you and Mestemia have simply explicitly stated that subjectivity as I have explained it, is wrong, and that you reject it.

How about you stop dictating to me what I have and have not said?

I understand your "argument" is so weak that you cannot let it stand on its own, but when you have to stoop so low as to dictate to others their position, feelings and even their counter arguments, it reveals just how weak your "argument" really is.

That you are unable to understand that you are nothing more than a boredom relieving plaything for me is most comical.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

If someone wants an atheist to believe in God they will need evidence.

It's changing a subjective issue into an objective issue. It is rejection of subjectivity.

It is the same as people who regard love as electrochemical processes in the brain. That is also making a subjective issue into an objective issue, where in that case it is accepted love exists, where in the case of God, it is not accepted God exists.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

How about you stop dictating to me what I have and have not said?

I understand your "argument" is so weak that you cannot let it stand on its own, but when you have to stoop so low as to dictate to others their position, feelings and even their counter arguments, it reveals just how weak your "argument" really is.

That you are unable to understand that you are nothing more than a boredom relieving plaything for me is most comical.

Meaningless garbage again. You reject subjectivity, that is what the evidence says.