I see no value in atheism

[leibowde84]

No, it's literally what relative is, although the two are often conflated. Subjective is based on personal opinion. What something means to us is about the world, and that's inevitably objective as long as its adequately descriptive.

Can you flesh that out a bit. I'm don't get it yet.

 

[Willamena]

Relative is the "to each of us" part. Subjective is like a "what I think" part, and objective is a "what it is" part.

 

[Willamena]

Can you flesh that out a bit. I'm don't get it yet.

Words are symbols--little "pictures" in either written form, sounds and/or gesture--that convey a piece or chunk of the world in communication. Of course that means they also convey a chunk of understanding, in so far as we each understand the world by drawing on the unique database of information that is in our individual craniums. Words are also responsible for how we relate to the world: in breaking the otherwise undivided world down into words, we have a means to relate to it as individual and unique chunks. We all learn words the same way, and so the words will be useful in ways that are common to all of us, but we will understand what words mean uniquely. No two alike. Common understanding comes from sharing pictures of chunks of the world, which is what we've been doing: semantics.

 

[Willamena]

"Subjective" refers to a chunk of the world that is an opinion. When I say, for instance, that the Eiffel Tower is humongous in reference to its size, that's opinion. It's what I think about the thing.

"Objective" refers to a chunk of the world that is descriptive. When I describe I try to be accurate, so I may draw on facts or appropriate metaphor to get my point across. I'm conveying a description of the chunk, and what I convey is going to be as I understand it to be, with the intent that you understand it as I do.

"Relative" refers to a chunk in relation to something, usually a measure of some sort. The Eiffel Tower is relatively large, and that's a fact. It's implied that it's being compared to other towers and structures, which are then its measure.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Is it actually ridiculously evil or are you just making that up?Like you assert as fact that it's ridiculously evil the way I go on about good and evil being fact?

It is my opinion. Opinions are great.

You provide no argumentation whatsoever, there is no reasoning whatsoever, there is just mindless repeating that the evil must be fact.

You are just addicted to the endorphin rush that it provides, to state what is good and evil as fact. It provides a false sense of absolute confidence, it makes you high on the drugs the brain produces itself. That is why you keep on mindlessly insisting, it is not because you care about anything.

 

[leibowde84]

Relative is the "to each of us" part. Subjective is like a "what I think" part, and objective is a "what it is" part.

What specifically is the difference between "to each of us" and "what I think"? Aren't those the same thing, more or less. Whatevery one believes to be the case is what it is to them.

 

[leibowde84]

It is my opinion. Opinions are great.

You provide no argumentation whatsoever, there is no reasoning whatsoever, there is just mindless repeating that the evil must be fact.

You are just addicted to the endorphin rush that it provides, to state what is good and evil as fact. It provides a false sense of absolute confidence, it makes you high on the drugs the brain produces itself. That is why you keep on mindlessly insisting, it is not because you care about anything.

Wow ... your comment takes the descriptive term "prideful" to a new level. Bravo!

 

[Willamena]

What specifically is the difference between "to each of us" and "what I think"? Aren't those the same thing, more or less. Whatevery one believes to be the case is what it is to them.

While "what I think" is unique to each of us, so is the rest of the world. We are particulars.

 

[JoStories]

And why is that? If you can choose your beliefs, why are you unable to change your beliefs? It is because you don't "choose" your beliefs, in the strict sense of the term. Your beliefs are a reaction or conclusion to the information you are given being run through your particular mental processes. You cannot simply "choose" to believe the sun will not rise in the morning when you have seen it rise every morning of your life for decades - once you possess knowledge or an understanding of something sufficient to convince you of the truth of that particular thing, you cannot merely "turn off" the fact that you have processed that information in that way. Your own language in talking about your beliefs clearly illustrates this: you didn't "choose" to experience what you experienced, and you didn't "choose" for them to convince you of your current position. And now that you are there, you cannot merely "choose" to change your mind unless circumstances (i.e: evidence) force you to - which means it isn't even really a choice at all.

I have been thinking about your post all day. I see your point and can also see this from your POV. Let me see if I can explain how I view this. You have seen from my posts that my idea of God is not that of others here. I view God as neither male or female nor having any gender at all. It's more of an energy source. When I had my first experience, I concluded that there was something but I was still open to logical explanations and in fact, still am. I decided that there was enough evidence, after further experiences, to conclude it might be what I see God as, so for me, this was a choice. It continues to be. If I find rational explanations, I will decide there might not be that energy source. Do you see?

 

[leibowde84]

While "what I think" is unique to each of us, so is the rest of the world. We are particulars.

So, what is the difference?

 

[Willamena]

So, what is the difference?

"What I think" is just one small part of the world that is unique to each of us.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I have been thinking about your post all day. I see your point and can also see this from your POV. Let me see if I can explain how I view this. You have seen from my posts that my idea of God is not that of others here. I view God as neither male or female nor having any gender at all. It's more of an energy source. When I had my first experience, I concluded that there was something but I was still open to logical explanations and in fact, still am. I decided that there was enough evidence, after further experiences, to conclude it might be what I see God as, so for me, this was a choice. It continues to be. If I find rational explanations, I will decide there might not be that energy source. Do you see?

I still don't think what you are describing is a choice. You said so yourself: you can't just "choose" to change your mind and become an atheist without impetus, as you have already concluded that there is something. This isn't something you chose, but something you concluded, and there is a subtle - though important - distinction. Being open to other explanations isn't really a matter of choice (personally, I would consider it a virtue). Perhaps there is an element of choice in what you choose to label God as, but that isn't really a matter of belief as much as it is a matter of personal definitions. But the fact that you believe in the existence the thing that you personally define as God exists is not merely a matter of choice. You could choose to call it "the energy source" or "the unknown" or "skippysaurus-rex", if you like, but what matters is that your belief in the actual existence of the thing you are naming was not strictly a choice on your part.

 

[JoStories]

I still don't think what you are describing is a choice. You said so yourself: you can't just "choose" to change your mind and become an atheist without impetus, as you have already concluded that there is something. This isn't something you chose, but something you concluded, and there is a subtle - though important - distinction. Being open to other explanations isn't really a matter of choice (personally, I would consider it a virtue). Perhaps there is an element of choice in what you choose to label God as, but that isn't really a matter of belief as much as it is a matter of personal definitions. But the fact that you believe in the existence the thing that you personally define as God exists is not merely a matter of choice. You could choose to call it "the energy source" or "the unknown" or "skippysaurus-rex", if you like, but what matters is that your belief in the actual existence of the thing you are naming was not strictly a choice on your part.

Okay flame. We are going to have to agree to disagree here. I understand, as I said, how you view this but I disagree.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Okay flame. We are going to have to agree to disagree here. I understand, as I said, how you view this but I disagree.

Okee doke. It's a pretty difficult concept to explain, really, and I'm hoping it doesn't come across as mere semantics (as so many of these types of debates tend to come down to). I feel it's quite important to understand as a concept that beliefs aren't necessarily informed by choices, in the strict sense, but are formed as responses to external stimuli being subjected to our personal mental processes, but if you continue to prefer calling it choice I can't really argue. At the very least, you appear to have given the concept a great deal of thought (and I'm sure you will continue to do so), and not dismissed it off-handedly as many people can do and have done in the past, so you certainly deserve respect for that.

 

[leibowde84]

"What I think" is just one small part of the world that is unique to each of us.

Oh. I see what you are saying. Don't you think that the phrase "what I think" could encompass all of our subjective experience?

 

[Willamena]

Oh. I see what you are saying. Don't you think that the phrase "what I think" could encompass all of our subjective experience?

It could, if it were read literally and its connotation ignored. Generally, it just refers to opinion.

 

[Shad]

Completely cynical that now you see that common discourse uses an essentially creationist definition of subjectivity, you drop your claim about it, and deride common discourse over the word of evolution experts again.

No your just do not understand the "common" part of your term. We have an opposing discourse since we do not agree, hence we oppose each other. We have a discourse but it is not common. Evolution has nothing to do with this view. It is one part philosophical, one part social communication (social sciences) and one part analysis. We have a discourse but it is not common.

I never dropped any claim, strawman. I only rejected your views on subjectivity since it is circular and non-sequitur.

Evolution experts who generally all deny free will is real and who have a history of social darwinism. You might just as well reference Hitler as your authority on how subjectivity works.

Just because your favorite strawman holds this view dos not mean I do. Another strawman and blatant lying again.

 

[leibowde84]

It could, if it were read literally and its connotation ignored. Generally, it just refers to opinion.

Imho, "what I think" is far too vague. Can we move forward using the term "opinion" instead?

No your just do not understand the "common" part of your term. We have an opposing discourse since we do not agree, hence we oppose each other. We have a discourse but it is not common. Evolution has nothing to do with this view. It is one part philosophical, one part social communication (social sciences) and one part analysis. We have a discourse but it is not common.

I never dropped any claim, strawman. I only rejected your views on subjectivity since it is circular and non-sequitur.



Just because your favorite strawman holds this view dos not mean I do. Another strawman and blatant lying again.

He tends to do this quite a bit.

 

[Shad]

Imho, "what I think" is far too vague. Can we move forward using the term "opinion" instead?

He tends to do this quite a bit.

His views are very baby and the bath water. By rejecting his "baby/view" one rejects the "bath water/everything" else along with it. It is a very black and white view with no shades of grey.

 

[leibowde84]

His views are very baby and the bath water. By rejecting his "baby/view" one rejects the "bath water/everything" else along with it. It is a very black and white view with no shades of grey.

I agree. He is extremely and erroneously fond of stereotyping.