Present arguments for atheism

[ArtieE]

So, you reject subjectivity, plain and simple.

No, I reject that you can choose to find paintings beautiful or ugly. We don't go to art galleries and say "I choose to find this picture ugly".

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.

There's no decision involved. We don't choose to find things beautiful or ugly we just find them beautiful or ugly. I can find a woman beautiful but not like the way she eats a sandwich. Nothing to do with choosing.

 

[Cap'n MacDougal]

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

Sorry I missed it. If you and I are looking at the same painting, you find it beautiful and I do not, what mechanisms are involved for us to reach our conclusion? Do you view it as simply a matter of choice?

 

[Yerda]

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.

You have been going on and on about subjectivity, choosing, and common discourse as if you own these terms since you started posting here. Not once have I witnessed you take heed of anyone else's understanding of these words and the concepts they denote.

Using your example of a painting - when I look at it I experience it subjectively. Neither I or anyone else here denies this or thinks it is possible to deny this. When you claim that we (atheists) deny subjectivity I really do not understand what you mean. We have subjective experience. What is there to deny?

What is there to choose? I can choose not to look at the painting, but if I do look at it I can't choose not to have a subjective experience of it.

When does it mean to say the government enforces facts?

 

[McBell]

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

Another bold faced lie.

You just can't help yourself, can you?

 

[Shad]

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.

Nope, you made a claim regarding a poster here and refused to back up your claim with evidence. You constructed a strawman to avoid your burden of evidence again.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No, I reject that you can choose to find paintings beautiful or ugly. We don't go to art galleries and say "I choose to find this picture ugly".There's no decision involved. We don't choose to find things beautiful or ugly we just find them beautiful or ugly. I can find a woman beautiful but not like the way she eats a sandwich. Nothing to do with choosing.

We choose the words beautiful or ugly, and what the agency of that decision is, is a matter of opinion. So love is doing the choosing, if it is love, love is not chosen, but the word is chosen.

And thanks for providing more proof for the extraordinary claim that all atheists reject subjectivity, without any exception.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Nope, you made a claim regarding a poster here and refused to back up your claim with evidence. You constructed a strawman to avoid your burden of evidence again.

Indeed I refused, because there were no consequences offered if I was found to be correct.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Another bold faced lie.

You just can't help yourself, can you?

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.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You have been going on and on about subjectivity, choosing, and common discourse as if you own these terms since you started posting here. Not once have I witnessed you take heed of anyone else's understanding of these words and the concepts they denote.

Using your example of a painting - when I look at it I experience it subjectively. Neither I or anyone else here denies this or thinks it is possible to deny this. When you claim that we (atheists) deny subjectivity I really do not understand what you mean. We have subjective experience. What is there to deny?

What is there to choose? I can choose not to look at the painting, but if I do look at it I can't choose not to have a subjective experience of it.

When does it mean to say the government enforces facts?

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.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Sorry I missed it. If you and I are looking at the same painting, you find it beautiful and I do not, what mechanisms are involved for us to reach our conclusion? Do you view it as simply a matter of choice?

The explanation was provided, there is no more explanation.

 

[ArtieE]

We choose the words beautiful or ugly,

No we don't. We don't go to an art gallery and "choose" to find some paintings beautiful and some ugly. We use the words "beautiful" and "ugly" to describe how we find the paintings.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No we don't. We don't go to an art gallery and "choose" to find some paintings beautiful and some ugly. We use the words "beautiful" and "ugly" to describe how we find the paintings.

We express our emotions, and expression of emotions can only occur spontaneously, with free will, thus choosing.

You are just rejecting subjectivity, plain and simple.

 

[Cap'n MacDougal]

The explanation was provided, there is no more explanation.

No, not really. Do you habitually avoid specificity, or is it more...subjective?

 

[ArtieE]

We express our emotions, and expression of emotions can only occur spontaneously, with free will, thus choosing.

You have a "free will" to "choose" which emotions to have?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No, not really. Do you habitually avoid specificity, or is it more...subjective?

It is actually a hyperspecific explanation of how subjectivity works, not like the usual vague words such as personal, feeling, etc. stuck together which can still much be interpreted to mean anything.

 

[Cap'n MacDougal]

We express our emotions, and expression of emotions can only occur spontaneously, with free will, thus choosing.

You are just rejecting subjectivity, plain and simple.

Wait, this is the explanation? If so, it lacks sufficient explanatory power. What mechanisms are involved in your show of emotions?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Wait, this is the explanation? If so, it lacks sufficient explanatory power. What mechanisms are involved in your show of emotions?

Again, the explanation you asked for was in some posts previous. What is your problem that you cannot find it?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You have a "free will" to "choose" which emotions to have?

As mentioned already 10 times to you, it is the emotions which actually do the choosing. Don't you see that there is something wrong with your prejudices when you cannot accurately refelect a logical construct simpler than the rules of tic tac toe?

 

[ArtieE]

As mentioned already 10 times to you, it is the emotions which actually do the choosing.

How do emotions "choose"?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

How do emotions "choose"?

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. That is what you factually see in principle. You don't see any agency doing the choosing, that is categorically a subjective issue, meaning one reaches the conclusion about what it is, by choosing it.