Present arguments for atheism

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Still ignoring you told a lie?

Already 1 is proven correct, now just a few more to go.

 

[leibowde84]

Why now you already come forward with saying honesty is objective, why don't you display some candour about the rest.

You have a very bad comprehension problem. I never said that honesty was objective. Again, see my previous comment. It is so simple that a child could understand that there are two different situations noted.

 

[McBell]

Already 1 is proven correct, now just a few more to go.

You have not proven any such thing.
You lied.
Then you lied about your lie.

You have been called out on both lies.
You no longer have any credibility.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Again, I am not claiming honsestly to be objective. I am saying that WHETHER SOMEONE WAS HONEST is objective. Here is your proof ... yet again.

"A says that the earth is flat. A knows that the earth is spherical. A was dishonest (objective)." = fact

"A says that the earth is flat to B. B assumes that A knows well that the earth is spherical. B thinks that A is being dishonest (subjective)." = opinion/choice

So very clearly you are saying honesty is fact. I accurately reflected what you said.

Are you now saying that opinons are arrived at by choosing????

 

[leibowde84]

Already 1 is proven correct, now just a few more to go.

I've proven that I do not think of honesty as being objective. What have you proven? All I see is that you have a reading comprehension problem. I guess english must be your second language.

 

[Straw Dog]

They will be the same as for a-fairism, a-bigfootism, a-leprechaunism, etc. And you know them already, if you do not believe in fairies, etc.

I also agree with this, except for the part about leprechauns. Apparently you've never been to the end of a rainbow...

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You have not proven any such thing.
You lied.
Then you lied about your lie.

You have been called out on both lies.
You no longer have any credibility.

That is how it goes with evolutionary scientists, that is how they work to establish evolutonary theory dealing with the opposition to it.

 

[leibowde84]

So very clearly you are saying honesty is fact. I accurately reflected what you said.

Are you now saying that opinons are arrived at by choosing????

If A says that the earth is flat, but knows in actuality that it is spherical, how is it not a fact that A was dishonest? And, please don't deflect. Please provide an actual answer.

 

[McBell]

That is how it goes with evolutionary scientists, that is how they work to establish evolutonary theory dealing with the opposition to it.

YOU have not presented anything but garbage and lies.

 

[leibowde84]

That is how it goes with evolutionary scientists, that is how they work to establish evolutonary theory dealing with the opposition to it.

At least we don't just blatantly lie and refuse to admit it. Isn't lying forbidden or at least looked down upon in Islam. How can you not feel bad about it?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You have a very bad comprehension problem. I never said that honesty was objective. Again, see my previous comment. It is so simple that a child could understand that there are two different situations noted.

Yes and one situation is noted as fact, and the fact pertains to honesty.

 

[Cap'n MacDougal]

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.

Oh no. Not at all. What alternative futures exist? Those determined by human choice? We seem to keep missing each other here. I'll help you a bit. What determines those choices? Mechanisms aren't rules, I have no idea where you're headed there.

Right then..."forced" opinions do not count, but regular old "unforced" opinions do. At this point, and I'm not attempting to be rude, your hypothesis is ****ed. ALL opinions are "forced."

Leprechauns are not agency. They purportedly possess agency. Good luck(!) explaining that away. I mean, you could be a condescending ******** with nothing to say, but, what's new right?

Facts are obtained in a forced way? What?

 

[leibowde84]

Yes and one situation is noted as fact, and the fact pertains to honesty.

If we know that a person is saying something that they know to be untrue, they are being dishonest. This is objective. Now, coming to the conclusion that they were lying would be subjective, but we aren't discussing that. We are discussing whether or not they were, at the time, dishonest, objectively.

 

[leibowde84]

So very clearly you are saying honesty is fact. I accurately reflected what you said.

Are you now saying that opinons are arrived at by choosing????

Opinions are arrived at by choosing. But, we aren't talking about our opinion of whether someone was honest. We are discussing, when it is known that someone says something they know to be untrue, they are being dishonest, by definition. There is no reason to "choose" as, in my hypothetical, we know that A is telling a lie.

 

[Willamena]

If we know that a person is saying something that they know to be untrue, they are being dishonest.

I take it you've never heard of metaphor.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

If A says that the earth is flat, but knows in actuality that it is spherical, how is it not a fact that A was dishonest? And, please don't deflect. Please provide an actual answer.

I won't provide an actual answer, I merely note that you are very insistent on regarding being honest as a matter of fact issue.

 

[leibowde84]

I take it you've never heard of metaphor.

Metaphor has nothing to do with this conversation.

 

[leibowde84]

I won't provide an actual answer, I merely note that you are very insistent on regarding being honest as a matter of fact issue.

You literally won't provide an answer because, even with your comprehension, you can still see that the scenario is objective. It is just an example. Just be a man and answer the question.

 

[McBell]

I won't provide an actual answer,

Gee, like there is anyone who is surprised about you, Mohammad Nur Syamsu, not providing an actual answer....

 

[leibowde84]

I won't provide an actual answer, I merely note that you are very insistent on regarding being honest as a matter of fact issue.

Whether someone was honest is a matter of fact. Our opinion of whetther someone was honest is subjective. Not too difficult of a concept to get.