I see no value in atheism

[leibowde84]

It is just authoritarian huffing and puffing when you demand the dictionary definition is correct, and it is incorrect to define fact in terms of model, and opinion in terms of agency of a decision.

My argument is not that the dictionary is "correct". My argument is that, in a debate forum like this where many are speaking english as a second language, the dictionary is a great tool to settle on the meanings of terms in the interesting of progressing a discussion. Do you disagree?

 

[leibowde84]

You want supporting argument?

Again...
The rule for obtaining a fact is to have evidence of something force to produce an exact model of what is evidenced.

For example the moon and a book about the moon containing facts in the form of words, pictures and mathematics. What is in the book is basically a 1 to 1 copy of the actual moon itself.

The rules for opinions are entirely different. For an opinion the rules are that the conclusion must be chosen, and the conclusion must be in reference to the agency of a decision.

The word "agency" means what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does. If you can go left or right, and choose left, then "agency" is defined as what made the decision turn out left instead of right.

For example, the painting is beautiful or ugly. Either chosen conclusion is logically valid. The word beautiful refers to a love of the way the painting looks. The love is the agency of a decision.

Therefore the existence of love is a matter of opinion, it is believed to exist, and love chooses the way things turn out.

So you can categorize between matters of fact and matters of opinion. Opinion applies to the agency of decisions, and fact applies to the way the decisions turn out.

When you look at what atheists write it is clear they do not accept the validity of opinions, subjectivity. They only accept facts as valid.

This does not have anything to do with my personal rejection of subjectivity. You, again, have provided an irrelevant past comment. I asked whether you can support your argument that me personally rejects subjectivity, not what you think subjectivity and/or fact is. I'll take that as a "I don't have any actual reason to accuse you of this ... sorry".

 

[Willamena]

I'm not sure what you mean by "born in and grew out of the social grouping", but I'm sure it was just one person who had used it elsewhere, started using it here, and it started to catch on. To tell you the truth, I've only seen one person use it a lot on here.

It is likely dying, yes, and eventually will pass out of usage, and so have no more meaning.

But, I feel like this is a misleading example anyways. My point is not to rare words that aren't commonly defined. I am talking about sociological, scientific, psychological, theological, etc. terms included in an argument.

The unique understandings that people have for such concepts is one of the most enjoyable parts of being on these forums. I'd likely leave if everyone were asked to use them in some way that wasn't theirs.

 

[leibowde84]

It is likely dying, yes, and eventually will pass out of usage, and so have no more meaning.


The unique understandings that people have for such concepts is one of the most enjoyable parts of being on these forums. I'd likely leave if everyone were asked to use them in some way that wasn't theirs.

I guess I disagree on this point. but that is just preference. I see a ton of confusion coming from this issue, and I don't really enjoy that part of it.

 

[ArtieE]

Masterfull debate move again. Same mastery of debate like Leibowde's changing an example in the middle of argumentation.

Again...
The rule for obtaining a fact is to have evidence of something force to produce an exact model of what is evidenced.

The question was: "So, just to clarify, if you came across somebody who was raping a little girl to death you wouldn't try to stop him because he's not doing anything wrong?" Since you didn't answer: "Yes, I would have tried to stop him because he was doing something wrong" now we all know what kind of person you are.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

This does not have anything to do with my personal rejection of subjectivity. You, again, have provided an irrelevant past comment. I asked whether you can support your argument that me personally rejects subjectivity, not what you think subjectivity and/or fact is. I'll take that as a "I don't have any actual reason to accuse you of this ... sorry".

You asked support for how morality is not objective. That was it.

Your responses are vacuous.

I provide argumentation.

And you reject subjectivity, as demonstrated time and again. That you use a different definition of subjectivity, just as Dennett uses the logic of being forced with the term free will has already been addressed. You say you accept subjectivity and Dennett says he accepts free will, yet I say you reject subjectivity and Dennet rejects free will, because both use nonsense definitions of the terms.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

The question was: "So, just to clarify, if you came across somebody who was raping a little girl to death you wouldn't try to stop him because he's not doing anything wrong?" Since you didn't answer: "Yes, I would have tried to stop him because he was doing something wrong" now we all know what kind of person you are.

Masterful debating tactic again.

 

[leibowde84]

You asked support for how morality is not objective. That was it.

Your responses are vacuous.

I provide argumentation.

And you reject subjectivity, as demonstrated time and again. That you use a different definition of subjectivity, just as Dennett uses the logic of being forced with the term free will has already been addressed. You say you accept subjectivity and Dennett says he accepts free will, yet I say you reject subjectivity and Dennet rejects free will, because both use nonsense definitions of the terms.

I asked for your reasoning as to why you think that I reject subjectivity. You still have yet to provide my comments that make you think this.

 

[leibowde84]

You asked support for how morality is not objective. That was it.

Your responses are vacuous.

I provide argumentation.

And you reject subjectivity, as demonstrated time and again. That you use a different definition of subjectivity, just as Dennett uses the logic of being forced with the term free will has already been addressed. You say you accept subjectivity and Dennett says he accepts free will, yet I say you reject subjectivity and Dennet rejects free will, because both use nonsense definitions of the terms.

Why do you think that the definitions I use are "nonsense"? Isn't that in itself rejecting subjectivity?

 

[Willamena]

I guess I disagree on this point. but that is just preference. I see a ton of confusion coming from this issue, and I don't really enjoy that part of it.

You've made a good point that confusion would be minimized if everyone used the language correctly. But the debate about what constitutes an atheist will continue as long as people are exposed to others abusing the language without even realizing that its being abused. It happens constantly on the Internet, and things aren't likely to change anytime soon. The terms "hard" and "soft," "explicit" and "implicit" were only popularized in the 1980s and 90s. The people who grew up with them, though, think it's always been that way throughout history, and argue as if it were.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I asked for your reasoning as to why you think that I reject subjectivity. You still have yet to provide my comments that make you think this.

Already addressed. For instance one who argues objective morality, rejects subjectivity. It's just another diversion tactic, like with the dictionary is also a meaningless diversion tactic. All debating tactics and no argumentation about the logic for fact and for opinion.

Fact has the logic of cause and effect, being forced, only 1 answer can be correct, the exact model. Opinion has the logic of choosing, at least 2 answers are correct. etc. That is what argumentation looks like.

 

[Willamena]

You've made a good point that confusion would be minimized if everyone used the language correctly. But the debate about what constitutes an atheist will continue as long as people are exposed to others abusing the language without even realizing that its being abused. It happens constantly on the Internet, and things aren't likely to change anytime soon. The terms "hard" and "soft," "explicit" and "implicit" were only popularized in the 1980s and 90s. The people who grew up with them, though, think it's always been that way throughout history, and argue as if it were.

I blame ain't. The lowly ain't. When I was a kid, you couldn't say "ain't." Of course, we did, but we were told, "You can't use ain't, because it ain't in the dictionary," which of course was an amusing contradiction intended to correct behavior.

At some point the English language just gave in. Things have been downhill since then.

 

[leibowde84]

Already addressed. For instance one who argues objective morality, rejects subjectivity. It's just another diversion tactic, like with the dictionary is also a meaningless diversion tactic. All debating tactics and no argumentation about the logic for fact and for opinion.

Fact has the logic of cause and effect, being forced, only 1 answer can be correct, the exact model. Opinion has the logic of choosing, at least 2 answers are correct. etc. That is what argumentation looks like.

I'm sorry, but you are lying. You have not once provided the comments from me that indicate I reject subjectivity. Please provide these so I can at least know what you are accusing me of. All you have thrown at me thus far are generalities and vague explanations that are not directly related to me at all.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Why do you think that the definitions I use are "nonsense"? Isn't that in itself rejecting subjectivity?

That is just another meanigless smart alecky remark, and not providing argumentation. Diverting attention away from the logic for the word fact and opinion.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I'm sorry, but you are lying. You have not once provided the comments from me that indicate I reject subjectivity. Please provide these so I can at least know what you are accusing me of. All you have thrown at me thus far are generalities and vague explanations that are not directly related to me at all.

I'm sorry, I don't care for your meaningless debating tactics. It should be enough for you to say that you accept it. And I will continue saying that you reject subjectivity, and Dennett rejects free will.

 

[leibowde84]

That is just another meanigless smart alecky remark, and not providing argumentation. Diverting attention away from the logic for the word fact and opinion.

Nope. I've actually asked for these comments many times, and you have yet to produce even one example. Aren't you actually the one who is guilty of this, as you refuse to support your argument? You made personal accusations about me regarding what I post and what it means about my character and beliefs. I simply asked that you provide the comments written by me that make you think this. You refuse and insult me more. So ... who is the one not providing argumentation and actively diverting attention away from logic? Not me.

 

[leibowde84]

I'm sorry, I don't care for your meaningless debating tactics. It should be enough for you to say that you accept it. And I will continue saying that you reject subjectivity, and Dennett rejects free will.

lol. I think I've said that I accept subjectivity about 100 times now, so I'm not sure what your point is with that.

You are fine with Dennett, as it is not my job to defend him and I have absolutely no affiliation with him whatsoever. I think it is foolish to put words into people's mouths, but that is your prerogative. As for insults toward me personally, though, I merely ask that you show why you feel that I reject subjectivity. The only honest way to do this (that is, assuming that you are actually being honest) would be to provide me with my comments that lead you to this belief. You refuse to do so.

 

[leibowde84]

I'm sorry, I don't care for your meaningless debating tactics. It should be enough for you to say that you accept it. And I will continue saying that you reject subjectivity, and Dennett rejects free will.

So, you have no problem being wrong?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

So, you have no problem being wrong?

You are wrong. You want the statement "I like icecream" to be a statement of fact about the electrochemistry in the brain. That love for icecream is demonstrated as fact to exist in the electrochemical and informationprocesses in the brain.

Then opinion=fact, which equals gibberish.

 

[leibowde84]

You are wrong. You want the statement "I like icecream" to be a statement of fact about the electrochemistry in the brain. That love for icecream is demonstrated as fact to exist in the electrochemical and informationprocesses in the brain.

Then opinion=fact, which equals gibberish.

I don't think that "I like ice cream" is a statement of fact, as it is most certainly a subjective opinion. Please provide the comment where I said otherwise.