Present arguments for atheism

[ArtieE]

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.

One truth is that you find the mountains beautiful another truth is that the mountains themselves are neither beautiful nor ugly they just exist.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

One truth is that you find the mountains beautiful another truth is that the mountains themselves are neither beautiful nor ugly they just exist.

What this supposedly means is, that the fact is the mountains cannot, autonomously, turn out several different ways.

That is just an imagined fact of atheism, so in order you can avoid subjectivity because it applies to agency.

 

[Valjean]

Beauty may be subjective, but we're talking about facts: Is there a huge tower of naked girders in Paris? Does the Earth revolve around the Sun? Are there pink unicorns on Venus? Is there a powerful, invisible magician overseeing our affairs?
These are objective questions; empirical questions, unaffected by subjective feelings or personal opinions.

 

[ArtieE]

What this supposely means is, that the fact is the mountains cannot, autonomously, turn out several different ways.

Makes no sense.

That is just an imagined fact of atheism, so in order you can avoid subjectivity because it applies to agency.

Makes no sense. Atheists can also subjectively find mountains beautiful.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Beauty may be subjective, but we're talking about facts: Is there a huge tower of naked girders in Paris? Does the Earth revolve around the Sun? Are there pink unicorns on Venus? Is there a powerful, invisible magician overseeing our affairs?
These are objective questions; empirical questions, unaffected by subjective feelings or personal opinions.

Again, saying "personal opinon" is just words. Next you will be defining "personal" as objectively visible processes in the brain, caused by genetics, and environmental factors, etc.

What is required to safeguard subjectivity is a logical construct. Basically the science of how a subjective statement is arrived at.

Subjective issues are about agency of decisions. So when the fact is that some things in the universe can turn out several different ways, regardless if it is a human being, or the weather, or anything, then it is a subjective issue what it is that makes the decision turn out the way it does. Meaning that the answer to the question of what it is can only be reached by choosing it.

Then you have defined a spiritual domain to which only subjectivity applies, as distinct from a material domain to which objectivity applies.

 

[leibowde84]

What this supposedly means is, that the fact is the mountains cannot, autonomously, turn out several different ways.

That is just an imagined fact of atheism, so in order you can avoid subjectivity because it applies to agency.

What other way can mountains "turn out"?

 

[ArtieE]

Subjective issues are about agency of decisions. So when the fact is that some things in the universe can turn out several different ways, regardless if it is a human being, or the weather, or anything, then it is a subjective issue what it is that makes the decision turn out the way it does.

You mean Thor the Thundergod subjectively chooses which weather we are going to have and Poseidon subjectively chooses to create an earthquake?

 

[Valjean]

Again, saying "personal opinon" is just words. Next you will be defining "personal" as objectively visible processes in the brain, caused by genetics, and environmental factors, etc.

What is required to safeguard subjectivity is a logical construct. Basically the science of how a subjective statement is arrived at.

But this science would consist of " objectively visible processes in the brain, caused by genetics, and environmental factors, etc."

Subjective issues are about agency of decisions. So when the fact is that some things in the universe can turn out several different ways, regardless if it is a human being, or the weather, or anything, then it is a subjective issue what it is that makes the decision turn out the way it does. Meaning that the answer to the question of what it is can only be reached by choosing it.

I would call this a random issue. It has nothing to do with any decisions by any agent.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

But this science would consist of " objectively visible processes in the brain, caused by genetics, and environmental factors, etc."

I would call this a random issue. It has nothing to do with any decisions by any agent.

The science simply describes the processes in terms of freedom. It describes in terms of that human beings can go left or right, and that a neuron in the brain can turn out "left" or "right". This then leaves room for subjectivity to make an opinion on what it is that makes the decision turn out the way it does.

Any decision including those of people are random in the sense you talk about it.

 

[Valjean]

Describes what process? Some actions are decisions -- choices by an agent -- others are just random occurrences.

If I consider my options and probable consequences, and then mane a decision, it's not random.
You're not understanding any of this, are you?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Describes what process? Some actions are decisions -- choices by an agent -- others are just random occurrences.

If I consider my options and probable consequences, and then mane a decision, it's not random.
You're not understanding any of this, are you?

You are just talking complete garbage, which you can know that you are talking rubbish by that you aren't really considering any logical constructs whatsoever, you are just sticking words together without any reference to logic.

The problem here is that you define random as that the event can turn out several different ways, and then you describe choosing as sorting out an option like a chesscomputer sorts out an option. The randomness then has actual freedom, while the chesscomputer is forced.

Human freedom is also explained in terms of spontaneity, just like the randomness.

It is because you insist on knowing for a fact what is good and evil, that you explain choosing in terms of soring out an option, using the facts about good and evil as sorting criteria.

 

[leibowde84]

You are just talking complete garbage, which you can know that you are talking rubbish by that you aren't really considering any logical constructs whatsoever, you are just sticking words together without any reference to logic.

The problem here is that you define random as that the event can turn out several different ways, and then you describe choosing as sorting out an option like a chesscomputer sorts out an option. The randomness then has actual freedom, while the chesscomputer is forced.

Human freedom is also explained in terms of spontaneity, just like the randomness.

It is because you insist on knowing for a fact what is good and evil, that you explain choosing in terms of soring out an option, using the facts about good and evil as sorting criteria.

Can you provide his comment where he claims that "good and evil are fact"? I don't see it anywhere. Or, are you just putting words in people's mouths as usual?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You mean Thor the Thundergod subjectively chooses which weather we are going to have and Poseidon subjectively chooses to create an earthquake?

Yes that is correct logic, provided the earthquake is explained in reference to a point where there was still freedom that it could, or could not occur. If it is explained from a point where the earthquake is forced to occur, then it is an error. But when there is freedom, then there is agency, and then it is categorically a subjective issue what the agency of the decision is.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Can you provide his comment where he claims that "good and evil are fact"? I don't see it anywhere. Or, are you just putting words in people's mouths as usual?

It was explained in how he distinghuishes choosing from randomness.

 

[leibowde84]

It was explained in how he distinghuishes choosing from randomness.

So, how does that automatically make him consider good and evil as fact? He never spoke to good and evil, which are inherently subjective in nature.

 

[Cap'n MacDougal]

You deemed? You've got nothing, you are just another atheist rejecting subjectivity.

Hi! Would you be able to provide an example where I, as an atheist, reject subjectivity?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Hi! Would you be able to provide an example where I, as an atheist, reject subjectivity?

Sure, subjectivity is choosing about what it is that chooses resulting in an opinion, do you accept it?

 

[Cap'n MacDougal]

Sure, subjectivity is choosing about what it is that chooses resulting in an opinion, do you accept it?

Thanks for the response. However, no, I do not accept it. To be perfectly honest, that appears to be a definition, not an example.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Thanks for the response. However, no, I do not accept it. To be perfectly honest, that appears to be a definition, not an example.

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

 

[ArtieE]

Sure, subjectivity is choosing about what it is that chooses resulting in an opinion, do you accept it?

This is a definition. Provide an example.