Present arguments for atheism

[Desert Snake]

I am not atheist, but belief is only one's opinion, so why argue? Everyone's opinions are equally valid, since we don't know. Anyone whose opinion goes against current knowledge should be seen in a skeptical manner, however.

Actually, 'knowledge' is /necessarily/, subjective, so your answer is 'subjective' to the person reading it.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

So do animals also have a "soul"? They clearly also "choose". Will they be judged by your god?

For any what can turn out several different ways, regardless if it is an animal, or the weather, or a human being, it is a decision, and it is a matter of opinion what the agency of the decision is.

 

[ArtieE]

For any what can turn out several different ways, regardless if it is an animal, or the weather, or a human being, it is a decision, and it is a matter of opinion what the agency of the decision is.

Who decides the weather tomorrow?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Who decides the weather tomorrow?

It's a matter of opinion what it is that makes the decision turn out the way it does.

 

[ArtieE]

It's a matter of opinion what it is that makes the decision turn out the way it does.

You said the weather tomorrow is the result of a decision. So in your opinion who decides the weather tomorrow?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You said the weather tomorrow is the result of a decision. So in your opinion who decides the weather tomorrow?

I said if the weather can turn out several different ways, then it is decided, and it is a matter of opinion what it is that makes the decision turn out the way it does. Meaning one has to choose the answer to the question. Choose between good luck and bad luck for example, either one is valid.

And what Artie writes, it proves beyond reasonable doubt that atheists reject subjectivity.

 

[Cap'n MacDougal]

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

'Ello der!

I certainly may have missed an explanation here or there. My problem most likely has its genesis in your posts making limited sense. It certainly could be a comprehension issue on my part, though. Generally, I'm pretty decent, but admittedly have limited experience with individuals repeating "...reject subjectivity" over and over.
Perhaps you'd be kind enough to direct me to your post(s) which explain the mechanisms involved?

 

[ArtieE]

I said if the weather can turn out several different ways, then it is decided

Who decided?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

'Ello der!

I certainly may have missed an explanation here or there. My problem most likely has its genesis in your posts making limited sense. It certainly could be a comprehension issue on my part, though. Generally, I'm pretty decent, but admittedly have limited experience with individuals repeating "...reject subjectivity" over and over.
Perhaps you'd be kind enough to direct me to your post(s) which explain the mechanisms involved?

I don't have any hope about your comprehension. You go find it yourself.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Who decided?

I already addressed that, good luck or bad luck would be equally valid answers. An act of God is also used many times.

 

[ArtieE]

I already addressed that, good luck or bad luck would be equally valid answers. An act of God is also used many times.

So your God will decide what the weather will be tomorrow?

 

[Shad]

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

So someone must offer you something or punish others for you to support your own claim with evidence. Hilarious. Seems like it is a cop out for being lazy or that your claim is in fact empty.

 

[Cap'n MacDougal]

I don't have any hope about your comprehension. You go find it yourself.

Fair enough! I assume I'll find it amongst such gems as:

"...but don't and can't see what it is that makes decisions turn out the way they do."

"...the conclusion that the soul does not exist is as valid as it does exist." *

And others! I think, somewhere, was some blip about faith and revelation. I'll agree with you there, I flatly reject revelatory religious experience as epistemically valid for any individual other than the individual with the experience. However, that doesn't constitute a rejection of subjectivity.

* You propose a hypothesis of a soul, please provide a metholodology by which we may determine the existence of such a component of a human. Here's a hint: experiencing choice isn't it.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Fair enough! I assume I'll find it amongst such gems as:

"...but don't and can't see what it is that makes decisions turn out the way they do."

"...the conclusion that the soul does not exist is as valid as it does exist." *

And others! I think, somewhere, was some blip about faith and revelation. I'll agree with you there, I flatly reject revelatory religious experience as epistemically valid for any individual other than the individual with the experience. However, that doesn't constitute a rejection of subjectivity.

* You propose a hypothesis of a soul, please provide a metholodology by which we may determine the existence of such a component of a human. Here's a hint: experiencing choice isn't it.

Your level of comprehension is very low. As was said certainly 8? times, the conclusion that the soul exists is reached by choosing. That is the methodlogy used. Meaning that the conclusion the soul exists is valid, and the conclusion it does not exist is also valid. Just as the painting is beautiful is valid and the painting is ugly is a valid opinion.

Faith and revelation refer to accepting scripture. The decision to believe or not in the soul is then deferred to the decision to accept scripture or not. Just as well when one lives in a country one usually accepts all the laws of the land in one go, similarly one can accept all the opinions in scripture in one go.

So the theory is that Mozart could have turned out several different ways given the material conditions at the start. He could for example have become a drunk not producing much of anything except farts, or he could become the composer that we know today.

What the agency of these decisions is that made Mozart turn out the way he did, is a matter of opinion, meaning one has to choose the answer to the question, and any chosen answer would be logically valid. The use of the words love and hate and such in common discourse, follow this logic that they are agency of a decision, and that you can only reach a conclusion whether thery are real or not by choosing the answer.

There is thus a spiritual domain, the existence of which is a matter of opinion, which decides over the material domain. One can also reach the conclusion there is no spiritual domain, which means to express a feeling of emptiness. This is a very common human expression.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

So your God will decide what the weather will be tomorrow?

You are just another atheist rejecting subjectivity.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

So someone must offer you something or punish others for you to support your own claim with evidence. Hilarious. Seems like it is a cop out for being lazy or that your claim is in fact empty.

You are right that it is the amount of work it would involve which is why I don't do it. There is no point in doing work if there are no consequences to it.

 

[Shad]

You are right that it is the amount of work it would involve which is why I don't do it. There is no point in doing work if there are no consequences to it.

Which is enough grounds for me to dismiss your charge against another user as empty. You are lazy, simple as that. Also you have zero integrity as most people will support claims they make with evidence. To not do so provides an example of the character of said person, you, lacking integrity

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Which is enough grounds for me to dismiss your charge against another user as empty. You are lazy, simple as that. Also you have zero integrity as most people will support claims they make with evidence. To not do so provides an example of the character of said person, you, lacking integrity

It's a nonsense. It's a well known lawyers trick to burry the other party in paperwork. To give others work, then you need to take consequences depending on what the result is, otherwise there is no point. And I don't pay attention to claims about integrity from people who reject subjectivity, as they have no emotional depth. If any had emotional depth, then I would also do the work, just to delight in the expression of emotion when the work is done. Then it would also have a point.

 

[McBell]

It's a nonsense. It's a well known lawyers trick to burry the other party in paperwork. To give others work, then you need to take consequences depending on what the result is, otherwise there is no point. And I don't pay attention to claims about integrity from people who reject subjectivity, as they have no emotional depth. If any had emotional depth, then I would also do the work, just to delight in the expression of emotion when the work is done. Then it would also have a point.

More garbage from you.

 

[Shad]

It's a nonsense. It's a well known lawyers trick to burry the other party in paperwork. To give others work, then you need to take consequences depending on what the result is, otherwise there is no point. And I don't pay attention to claims about integrity from people who reject subjectivity, as they have no emotional depth. If any had emotional depth, then I would also do the work, just to delight in the expression of emotion when the work is done. Then it would also have a point.

You made the claim but refuse to do the work to support it. You know lawyers used evidence to argue cases right? Empty assertions are dismissed. It is your burden of proof as you made the claim. You are also shifting the goal posts in order to place your inability or unwillingness to do the work on to others. Sorry son, you made the claim now back it up.

Oh so your attack upon others was only used to give yourself an emotional boost and an appeal to emotions? That says a lot about the type of person you are. Some would called that trolling.

I was saying you have no integrity, not others. You continue to show you lack integrity, nothing more. Your cop out is nothing more than "I will provide evidence if/when people agree with my sophistry." That's called preaching to the choir.