Present arguments for atheism

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

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.

That's nonsense, the evidence can turn out either way, I just want him to take consequenses if he is found to be in error.

You talking about integrity I find ridiculous.

 

[Cap'n MacDougal]

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.

Thank you!

I apologize, however, "choosing" is not a methodology. There are several processes which occur prior to the experience of choice. Viz, choosing to believe in the existence of a soul is as epistemically valid for others as choosing to believe that Leprechaun's exist. It does not, in any manner, validate the statement "souls exist."*

Yes, the painting is simultaneously beautiful and ugly. And, this is observer dependant. What's missing (and...for some reason I keep saying this) is your explanation of the the mechanisms involved by which individuals conclude things such as paintings and Mozarts beautiful. Explain them, please, or should I treat your opinion as valid?

Choice doesn't make anything real, I'm not at all certain why you would even think such a ridiculous notion.

*If you posit that souls exist, prove it. It is known that your mechanism of choice can be ruined by chemicals, neurodegenerative disease, blunt force trauma, etc.

 

[Shad]

That's nonsense, the evidence can turn out either way, I just want him to take consequenses if he is found to be in error.

If the evidence comes out against your claim then you made a false accusation against another. By asking you to provide evidence he already acknowledge the consequences. However since you are refusing to provide evidence for your claim it seems like you do not want to face the possible consequence that you will be shown to be wrong. Again shifting the burden on to another which is fallacious. You know logic you always like to talk about? You are doing it wrong...

You talking about integrity I find ridiculous.

Not really. You made a claim now refuse to provide evidence of it. Hence you lack integrity to stand by your claim with evidence for all to see. Keep shifting that burden along with your goal posts. When you are done maybe we can play some football.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

More garbage from you.

You've now got me saying Leibowde regards truth as interchangeable with fact, regards the existence of God as in principle a factual issue, regards honesty as fact, regards love as fact. Leibowde denies this, but hasn't offered any consequences if his assertion is found to be in error.

This is all you've got. You've got no argumentation is why you go off on an obscure tangent.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Thank you!

I apologize, however, "choosing" is not a methodology. There are several processes which occur prior to the experience of choice. Viz, choosing to believe in the existence of a soul is as epistemically valid for others as choosing to believe that Leprechaun's exist. It does not, in any manner, validate the statement "souls exist."*

Yes, the painting is simultaneously beautiful and ugly. And, this is observer dependant. What's missing (and...for some reason I keep saying this) is your explanation of the the mechanisms involved by which individuals conclude things such as paintings and Mozarts beautiful. Explain them, please, or should I treat your opinion as valid?

Choice doesn't make anything real, I'm not at all certain why you would even think such a ridiculous notion.

*If you posit that souls exist, prove it. It is known that your mechanism of choice can be ruined by chemicals, neurodegenerative disease, blunt force trauma, etc.

Choosing is the mechanism of creation. There are alternatives in the future, one of which is made the present, that is the mechanism of choosing. Or one can explain in terms of making a future the present or not as the alternatives. That is a mechanism, a rule. It means for instance that being forced to a conclusion results in an invalid opinion, because then no alternative conclusion could be reached.

You failed to see, allthough it was mentioned a zillion times, that the other criteria for an opinion is that it must refer to the agency of a decision. A leprechaun is not agency, therefore the method of subjectivity does not apply.

The method of objectivity applies to leprechauns. Facts are obtained in a forced way. Evidence of something forces to produce a model of what is evidenced.

That you require proof for the soul just means that you reject subjectivity as invalid, like all atheists.

 

[Shad]

You've now got me saying Leibowde regards truth as interchangeable with fact, regards the existence of God as in principle a factual issue, regards honesty as fact, regards love as fact. Leibowde denies this, but hasn't offered any consequences if his assertion is found to be in error.

This is all you've got. You've got no argumentation is why you go off on an obscure tangent.

Shifting burden of proof. Fallacious reasoning, that is all you have.

 

[McBell]

You've now got me saying Leibowde regards truth as interchangeable with fact, regards the existence of God as in principle a factual issue, regards honesty as fact, regards love as fact. Leibowde denies this, but hasn't offered any consequences if his assertion is found to be in error.

This is all you've got. You've got no argumentation is why you go off on an obscure tangent.

Nothing but garbage.
You need to stop hypocritically denying subjectivity.

 

[Shad]

That you require proof for the soul just means that you reject subjectivity as invalid, like all atheists.

Wrong again son. There are two subjective views here. One that there is a soul, another that there is no such thing as a soul. In order to resolve this objective evidence must be provided otherwise anyone can reject another view. You have rejected another persons subjective opinion which anyone can do. However since you are rejecting one of your own principles, that subjective views are valid, by rejecting the no-soul view you have rejected subjectivity and contradicted yourself rendering your argument untenable. Try again son.

 

[McBell]

Wrong again son. There are two subjective views here. One that there is a soul, another that there is no such thing as a soul. In order to resolve this objective evidence must be provided otherwise anyone can reject another view. You have rejected another persons subjective opinion which anyone can do. However since you are rejecting one of your own principles, that subjective views are valid, by rejecting the no-soul view you have rejected subjectivity and contradicted yourself rendering your argument untenable. Try again son.

I bet he replies with his "that is garbage" mantra....

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Shifting burden of proof. Fallacious reasoning, that is all you have.

I wasn't shifting burden of proof, I was just saying it's a burden, and there ought to be a point to taking up burdens. You've got nothing except bizarre accusations which show you bring no emotions to the discussion.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I bet he replies with his "that is garbage" mantra....

You post garbage.

 

[McBell]

You post garbage.

Not nearly as much as you.

Come on now, everyone knows you really really really want to tell him his pointing out your blatant hypocrisy is garbage.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Wrong again son. There are two subjective views here. One that there is a soul, another that there is no such thing as a soul. In order to resolve this objective evidence must be provided otherwise anyone can reject another view. You have rejected another persons subjective opinion which anyone can do. However since you are rejecting one of your own principles, that subjective views are valid, by rejecting the no-soul view you have rejected subjectivity and contradicted yourself rendering your argument untenable. Try again son.

Soul is agency, and all questions about agency are subjective, in fact there is no other subjective issue except agency, which means that you reject any and all subjectivity.

It was already explained that reaching a conclusion in a forced way results in an invalid opinion. And as facts work by force, then requiring proof is to require force, and therefore it is an invalid opinion. If he said to choose the conclusion the soul does not exist, by expression of emotion with his free will, then it would be a valid opinion.

 

[McBell]

Soul is agency, and all questions about agency are subjective, in fact there is no other subjective issue except agency, which means that you reject any and all subjectivity.

more garbage.
You certainly are the master.

 

[Shad]

I wasn't shifting burden of proof, I was just saying it's a burden, and there ought to be a point to taking up burdens. You've got nothing except bizarre accusations which show you bring no emotions to the discussion.

You are shifting it based upon the sophistry that the other poster must accept something in order for you to do the work. Your burden is an obligation the moment anyone asks you for evidence otherwise it is grounds for dismissal. Hence why evidence is produced. No one is obligated to accept your requirements in order to show your burden of proof. It only shows their bias. However by not producing evidence you show others that your claims are unjustified but you really do not care to do the work cause its a "burden" hence do not care about your integrity. So you are happy with making empty claims about people all day long as you do not feel you need to justify anything you say. Being doing so you just removed all grounds for complaining about other people's views as they too can make claims without evidence. However you employ a double-standard in which you have one standard and everyone is obligated to follow another then proceed to use this as grounds for complain about people rejecting your opinion.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Not nearly as much as you.

Come on now, everyone knows you really really really want to tell him his pointing out your blatant hypocrisy is garbage.

It goes without saying that of course it is garbage.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

more garbage.
You certainly are the master.

That is argumentation. You are incapable or recognizing argumentation.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You are shifting it based upon the sophistry that the other poster must accept something in order for you to do the work. However this is not a obligation anyone is required to meet.

It most certainly is an obligation they are required to meet. Your robotic notions of justice as ordained by a computerprogram are nonsense. Reality is emotions, and a burden cannot be taken up without there being a point to it, so say my emotions.

 

[Shad]

I bet he replies with his "that is garbage" mantra....

Nope. I expect him to whine within a text wall of sophistry.

 

[McBell]

That is argumentation. You are incapable or recognizing argumentation.

That is garbage and you know it.
I recognized a long time ago you do not present arguments.
You present garbage.
Lots and lots of garbage in an attempt to bury everyone in garbage so that when they give up you can claim victory.
You do nothing but play Pigeon Chess.