I see no value in atheism

[ImmortalFlame]

You reject subjectivity, and deny freedom is real and relevant.

Thank you for making my point for me. Your accusations are unsupported and vacuous, and you simply use them to ignore the actual intellectual content of your detractors, because you are not able to debate these subjects on a comparatively intelligent level.

 

[ArtieE]

You reject subjectivity, and deny freedom is real and relevant.

So if a person subjectively thinks it's right to rape little girls to death we shouldn't deny him the freedom to do so?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Thank you for making my point for me. Your accusations are unsupported and vacuous, and you simply use them to ignore the actual intellectual content of your detractors, because you are not able to debate these subjects on a comparatively intelligent level.

Artie is doing a right proper job of proving evolutionists reject subjectivity. Everybody knows you just say what is convenient for you to say at the time, and that there is no genuine acceptance of subjectivity on your part whatsoever

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Artie is doing a right proper job of proving evolutionists reject subjectivity.

Well, at least he's doing a far, far better job than you are, then.

Everybody knows you just say what is convenient for you to say at the time, and that there is no genuine acceptance of subjectivity on your part whatsoever

Do you not understand that just accusing someone of something doesn't make it true? I'm going to state this unequivocally and in as straight-forward a manner as I can:

I accept evolution.
I accept the existence of subjectivity.
I regard freedom as real and relevant.
I am not a social Darwinist.

There you go. Your argument is successfully refuted. Please try a new one.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Well, at least he's doing a far, far better job than you are, then.


Do you not understand that just accusing someone of something doesn't make it true? I'm going to state this unequivocally and in as straight-forward a manner as I can:

I accept evolution.
I accept the existence of subjectivity.
I regard freedom as real and relevant.
I am not a social Darwinist.

There you go. Your argument is successfully refuted. Please try a new one.

The root of all subjectivity is that the agency of a decision can only be identified by choosing the answer. You reject subjectivity.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The root of all subjectivity is that the agency of a decision can only be identified by choosing the answer. You reject subjectivity.

I don't reject subjectivity. You argument has already been refuted. Please try a new one.

 

[Mycroft]

You reject subjectivity, and deny freedom is real and relevant.

Subjectivity is irrelevant where factual matters are concerned.

 

[Willamena]

The root of all subjectivity is that the agency of a decision can only be identified by choosing the answer. You reject subjectivity.

No: the root of all subjectivity is that agency, period. No more conditions necessary.

 

[Willamena]

Subjectivity is irrelevant where factual matters are concerned.

Unless its the factuality of subjectivity. Then it has to be relevant.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Subjectivity is irrelevant where factual matters are concerned.

Because subjectivity is relevant to the agency of decisions, in practice it does require some knowledge of decisions that are made. Which is why creation theory has such importance within religion, because the decisions by which is created provide the focus point to relate to the spirit which made the decisions turn out the way they did.

So you see how evolution theory stands in direct opposition to describing origins in terms of decisions, and also evolution theory generally explains human and animal behaviour denying free will for instance nobel prize winner Konrad Lorenz, also evolutionary psychology explains emotions as fact in terms of programming in the brain, also professional biologists change the logic in the very definition of choosing to make it use a logic of being forced (a sorting process where the result is forced by sorting criteria), also in the culture around evolution theory the human spirit, or anything not in evidence, is rejected to exist for the sole reason that it is not in evidence.

So you can see how this is a comprehensive onslaught against subectivity coming from the people around natural selection theory.

It's also not the case that professors, or well known intellectuals promoting evolution theory, are in any sense reasonable about this issue. That they would lay various conceptions of free will and subjectivity side by side and evaluate which one works out. They have preconceived that they will never accept the existence of anything without being forced by evidence, which means there is no consideration of the procedure to reach the conclusion about what the agency of a decision is by choosing the answer. I can tell you in years of talking to them, not one of them has ever even considered it. It is just mindless debating tactics, authoritarian huffing and puffing, to push through the evolution agenda to destroy any knowledge about how things are chosen, and destroy subjectivity.

 

[Mycroft]

Because subjectivity is relevant to the agency of decisions, in practice it does require some knowledge of decisions that are made. Which is why creation theory has such importance within religion, because the decisions by which is created provide the focus point to relate to the spirit which made the decisions turn out the way they did..

Irrelevant. Try having a subjective opinion over gravity. I assure you it won't end well when you decide to make the jump, regardless of your opinion.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No: the root of all subjectivity is that agency, period. No more conditions necessary.

The difficulty in accepting subjectivity is the temptation to regard good and evil as fact. A fact is forced by evidence. In contrast to that the valid explanation for subjectivity must reference that the answer about what the agency of a decision is, is reached by choosing it.

An opinion must be contrasted with fact, because when you just say agency, then evolutionists are just going to say that the agency is genetics or the brain or something, and that it forces a result. That the conclusion the painting is beautiful is reached by the genetics, brain, forcing this conclusion as that the genetics and brain are "agency".

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Irrelevant. Try having a subjective opinion over gravity. I assure you it won't end well when you decide to make the jump, regardless of your opinion.

Creationism validates both fact and opinion. A fact is obtained by evidence forcing to a 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. The facts in the book are arrived at by evidence of the moon forcing it. The moon is the cause, the book is the effect, cause and effect.

Facts apply to creation, and opinion applies to the creator. Because of this dual nature of creationist philosophy it validates both fact and opinion.

 

[Willamena]

Creationism validates both fact and opinion. A fact is obtained by evidence forcing to a 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. The facts in the book are arrived at by evidence of the moon forcing it. The moon is the cause, the book is the effect, cause and effect.

Western civilization looks at a cause being a bit more close to the effect in terms of efficacy.

Facts apply to creation, and opinion applies to the creator. Because of this dual nature of creationist philosophy it validates both fact and opinion.

In Western civilization, at very least, facts and opinions can apply to either.

 

[Willamena]

The difficulty in accepting subjectivity is the temptation to regard good and evil as fact. A fact is forced by evidence. In contrast to that the valid explanation for subjectivity must reference that the answer about what the agency of a decision is, is reached by choosing it.

I don't understand your point--good and evil can certainly be a fact, forced by evidence, depending on circumstance. They can be evidenced. Fact and opinion can apply to all things.

An opinion must be contrasted with fact, because when you just say agency, then evolutionists are just going to say that the agency is genetics or the brain or something, and that it forces a result. That the conclusion the painting is beautiful is reached by the genetics, brain, forcing this conclusion as that the genetics and brain are "agency".

A fact is most certainly contrasted with opinion, and I agree with you there. But since, in Western thought, the fact of a thing is not the thing it's a fact of, and neither is an opinion of a thing the thing it's an opinion of, there is no question that either fact or opinion can apply to all things. It's the best of both worlds.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Western civilization looks at a cause being a bit more close to the effect in terms of efficacy.

In Western civilization, at very least, facts and opinions can apply to either.

In the late middle ages Ockham and some other monks provided the philosophical grounds for distinghuishing fact from opinion. Before that, while obviously there was some recognition that they were distinct, opinion and fact were still much in one intractible conceptual mess. What that means for instance is that when you say that the sun is at the center of the solar system in stead of the earth, then you are equally saying that human beings have little worth.

That is what you get when facts and opinions are in a conceptual mess. But the monks changed that, thereby releasing science from constraints so that it could flourish. It also laid the groundworks for democracy as being based around freedom of opinion and religion. Later materialism got the upperhand, which then resulted in social darwinism and the holocaust in Europe.

Of course you cannot have a democracy when it is a matter of fact what is good. It makes no sense to have freedom of opinion scribed into law when what is good is fact. Then it would only make sense to scribe into law the government will do what is good, and forget about freedom of opinion and religion altogether. It is only in the sense of nazi Germany with it's social darwinism representing the West, that it makes any sense to say that in the West what is good and evil is considered a fact. Which is of course true, nazism and communism were Western inventions stemming from the culture around science and evolution theory. Nazism and communism were much more popular at universities than with people in general.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I don't understand your point--good and evil can certainly be a fact, forced by evidence, depending on circumstance. They can be evidenced. Fact and opinion can apply to all things.


A fact is most certainly contrasted with opinion, and I agree with you there. But since, in Western thought, the fact of a thing is not the thing it's a fact of, and neither is an opinion of a thing the thing it's an opinion of, there is no question that either fact or opinion can apply to all things. It's the best of both worlds.

I never said otherwise that it is the fact of. The moon and the book about the moon containing the facts.

You are not answering the question do you consider the measurable brain to be the agency of decisions?

 

[Deidre]

Creationism validates both fact and opinion. A fact is obtained by evidence forcing to a 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. The facts in the book are arrived at by evidence of the moon forcing it. The moon is the cause, the book is the effect, cause and effect.

Facts apply to creation, and opinion applies to the creator. Because of this dual nature of creationist philosophy it validates both fact and opinion.

You make an excellent demonstration of the hysterical mindlessness of evolutionists to compete fact against opinion to the destruction of opinion.

Are you implying that evolution had a Creator? I think that if a theist believes that, at least it's going in the right direction. lol

 

[Willamena]

In the late middle ages Ockham and some other monks provided the philosophical grounds for distinghuishing fact from opinion. Before that, while obviously there was some recognition that they were distinct, opinion and fact were still much in one intractible conceptual mess. What that means for instance is that when you say that the sun is at the center of the solar system in stead of the earth, then you are equally saying that human beings have little worth.

Sun is god. But that phrase can be opinion or it can be metaphor.

That is what you get when facts and opinions are in a conceptual mess. But the monks changed that, thereby releasing science from constraints so that it could flourish. It also laid the groundworks for democracy as being based around freedom of opinion and religion. Later materialism got the upperhand, which then resulted in social darwinism and the holocaust in Europe.

It's my understanding that Social Darwinism arose in the 19th Century as a political statement, and died soon after. I don't see it's relevance.

Of course you cannot have a democracy when it is a matter of fact what is good. It makes no sense to have freedom of opinion scribed into law when what is good is fact. Then it would only make sense to scribe into law the government will do what is good, and forget about freedom of opinion and religion altogether. It is only in the sense of nazi Germany with it's social darwinism representing the West, that it makes any sense to say that in the West what is good and evil is considered a fact. Which is of course true, nazism and communism were Western inventions stemming from the culture around science and evolution theory. Nazism and communism were much more popular at universities than with people in general.

I'm sorry, I know little to nothing about Social Darwinism, and even less about Nazism. They are not relevant to the world.

 

[Willamena]

In

You are not answering the question do you consider the measurable brain to be the agency of decisions?

I didn't see that question asked.

I'm an idealist, which is to say that the idea of the measurable or the brain or the source of the agency of decision does not differ from those things.