I see no value in atheism

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

In
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.

Ideas seem to just be facts about the mind. I can write down as fact what ideas somebody has on their mind, just as well I can collect facts about the moon and stuff.

It is a matter of logic that the agency of a decision can only be identified in a free way.

The agency of a decision is free per definition, because it chooses. Facts are obtained by evidence forcing to a conclusion.

The force of evidence does not match with the freedom required.

So if you say that you have facts about the agency of a decision you are equally saying that force is freedom, which is an error of contradiction of terms.

When you say it is both fact and opinion what the agency of a decision is then you must be using a different meaning of fact than usual in that case.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

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

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.


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

When you say agency is fact, then freedom of opinion, as in democracy, becomes absurd.

Could a judge or any civil servant than ignore these supposes facts? If the existenxe of God was fact then it makes sense to simply force the government to accept God exists. Just like many other facts are commonly forced.

 

[JoStories]

You did a terrible job, merely providing vague insults to my character and failing to provide a single specific example. Please provide reasoning for your erroneous assumption so I can point out why you are mistaken.

He can't leibowde. He just keeps resorting to illogical circular reasoning and worst of all, insults, which IMO, are the tool of not only a lazy mind, but also someone who not only can't debate but has already lost the argument to begin with.

 

[JoStories]

See how serious, deep and completely irrational rejection of subjectivity that it is? That's because society is not requiring creationism is taught at school.

Creationism is not fact. Can you prove this concept? It is pure opinion which then negates your entire argument. It is a fact that I am legally blind but according to your reasoning, that would be opinion. Can you explain how that can be?

 

[JoStories]

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.

The minute you 'obtain evidence by forcing it to a model' you're practicing junk science. No reputable scientist would even consider doing such a thing. In fact, most scientists look outside the box to ensure they are not missing things that could make the evidence not fit the model at all. And how in the world does ' the moon' force anything? Once opinions are validated by fact, they are no longer opinion at all. I can have the opinion that the moon is green cheese but without fact, that opinion is totally moot. Equally, creationism might be a nice sounding opinion but it doesn't Contin a single shred of fact to back it.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Creationism is not fact. Can you prove this concept? It is pure opinion which then negates your entire argument. It is a fact that I am legally blind but according to your reasoning, that would be opinion. Can you explain how that can be?

The explanation is you don't read what I write, and then you start talking nonsense just because you see the word creationism.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

The minute you 'obtain evidence by forcing it to a model' you're practicing junk science. No reputable scientist would even consider doing such a thing. In fact, most scientists look outside the box to ensure they are not missing things that could make the evidence not fit the model at all. And how in the world does ' the moon' force anything? Once opinions are validated by fact, they are no longer opinion at all. I can have the opinion that the moon is green cheese but without fact, that opinion is totally moot. Equally, creationism might be a nice sounding opinion but it doesn't Contin a single shred of fact to back it.

You don't read well. You write nonsense.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

He can't leibowde. He just keeps resorting to illogical circular reasoning and worst of all, insults, which IMO, are the tool of not only a lazy mind, but also someone who not only can't debate but has already lost the argument to begin with.

You have no discipline to follow the rules I explained in evaluating what I say. So then you are not evaluating what I say, you evaluate the mess you make yourself.

Fact
The conclusion must be arrived at by evidence forcing to produce a model of what is evidenced.
Opinion
The conclusion must be chosen. The conclusion must be in reference to the agency of a decision.

These rules work out without logical contradictions, and are in line with the common discourse understanding of fact and opinion.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

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.

 

[JoStories]

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.

It may not have occurred to you but perhaps....just perhaps some one like me may have misunderstood you, given your tendency to circular speech and such. And instead of thinking that may be the case, you inevitably resort to insults and ridicule. This is the one thing about this place that truly irritates me. When I am wrong, I apologize. I still don't agree with oyu, particularly when you say "for an opinion the rules are that a conclusion must be chosen". Horse merde. I can have an opinion in the absence of a conclusion or a conclusion before an opinion even comes to be. Either way, I am sick to death of your insults to everyone who has the temerity to disagree with you.

 

[Shad]

No we accept opinion but clearly have an understanding between sound and unsound positions. Logically valid is useless if the premises are not true as one can not guarantee their argument will lead to a true conclusion. Hence opinion is not equal to facts. Subjectivity is not equal to objectivity. Hence why people ask for justification for an opinion.

Religion teaches nonsense.
Only fools believe in nonsense.
Thus the religious are fools.

Logically valid but is it sound? According to your own argument you must accept my opinion as valid thus you must acknowledge you are a fool. This is what happens when you accept your own sophistry as true without actually developing more than a passing thought of the merit of your arguments. You set a trap for yourself.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

It may not have occurred to you but perhaps....just perhaps some one like me may have misunderstood you, given your tendency to circular speech and such. And instead of thinking that may be the case, you inevitably resort to insults and ridicule. This is the one thing about this place that truly irritates me. When I am wrong, I apologize. I still don't agree with oyu, particularly when you say "for an opinion the rules are that a conclusion must be chosen". Horse merde. I can have an opinion in the absence of a conclusion or a conclusion before an opinion even comes to be. Either way, I am sick to death of your insults to everyone who has the temerity to disagree with you.

Well I am right, and you have no chance to find a fault.

The insults are generally more on the other side. You have no argument, so you resort to manipulative tactics.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No we accept opinion but clearly have an understanding between sound and unsound positions. Logically valid is useless if the premises are not true as one can not guarantee their argument will lead to a true conclusion. Hence opinion is not equal to facts. Subjectivity is not equal to objectivity. Hence why people ask for justification for an opinion.

Religion teaches nonsense.
Only fools believe in nonsense.
Thus the religious are fools.

Logically valid but is it sound? According to your own argument you must accept my opinion as valid thus you must acknowledge you are a fool. This is what happens when you accept your own sophistry as true without actually developing more than a passing thought of the merit of your arguments. You set a trap for yourself.

Obviously, opinions which somebody doesn't like are still logically valid if they are chosen and in reference to the agency of a decision.

You write nonsense again. You try real hard to find fault, but it is just plain nonsense.

 

[Shad]

Obviously, opinions which somebody doesn't like are still logically valid if they are chosen and in reference to the agency of a decision.

You write nonsense again. You try real hard to find fault, but it is just plain nonsense.

You skipped my question, is it sound ? This is how any logical argument guarantee the premises are true leading to a true actually true, valid and sound. This is why opinion is worthless in logic as opinion does not grant truth to a premise nor conclusion.

It is easy to find fault since soundness is a based principle in logic. I have linked you lectures regarding soundness in logic. Soundness is the final point of evaluation in logic, if an argument can not proven sound the argument is worthless. Hence your comments are worthless and why an opinion is not an argument as by definition concedes the ability to prove a true conclusion. This is why you want opinion to be on the same level of objectivity, you can not prove your own argument to be true and is more than sophistry. You do not understand this point, willingly or due to a lack of ability. You need to ignore it as your argument crumbles by this very principle of the logic you attempt, and fail, to use.

Hence the phrase, "It is only an opinion". You have an opinion which some may agree with and from other member's post, disagree. That is all your have, an opinion. Once you begin linking your thought with reality, as per your rants of "evolutionary theory leads to X" you are attempting to justify your opinion with facts and models. You are doing exactly what you are ranting against... You are using a model for justification based on evidence...

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You skipped my question, is it sound ? This is how any logical argument guarantee the premises are true leading to a true actually true, valid and sound. This is why opinion is worthless in logic as opinion does not grant truth to a premise nor conclusion.

It is easy to find fault since soundness is a based principle in logic. I have linked you lectures regarding soundness in logic. Soundness is the final point of evaluation in logic, if an argument can not proven sound the argument is worthless. Hence your comments are worthless and why an opinion is not an argument as by definition concedes the ability to prove a true conclusion. This is why you want opinion to be on the same level of objectivity, you can not prove your own argument to be true and is more than sophistry. You do not understand this point, willingly or due to a lack of ability. You need to ignore it as your argument crumbles by this very principle of the logic you attempt, and fail, to use.

Hence the phrase, "It is only an opinion". You have an opinion which some may agree with and from other member's post, disagree. That is all your have, an opinion. Once you begin linking your thought with reality, as per your rants of "evolutionary theory leads to X" you are attempting to justify your opinion with facts and models. You are doing exactly what you are ranting against... You are using a model for justification based on evidence...

That is some kind of diatribe about the supposed worthlessness of opinion, and the uber superiority of facts. Rejection of subjectivity, pure evil.

 

[JoStories]

You skipped my question, is it sound ? This is how any logical argument guarantee the premises are true leading to a true actually true, valid and sound. This is why opinion is worthless in logic as opinion does not grant truth to a premise nor conclusion.

It is easy to find fault since soundness is a based principle in logic. I have linked you lectures regarding soundness in logic. Soundness is the final point of evaluation in logic, if an argument can not proven sound the argument is worthless. Hence your comments are worthless and why an opinion is not an argument as by definition concedes the ability to prove a true conclusion. This is why you want opinion to be on the same level of objectivity, you can not prove your own argument to be true and is more than sophistry. You do not understand this point, willingly or due to a lack of ability. You need to ignore it as your argument crumbles by this very principle of the logic you attempt, and fail, to use.

Hence the phrase, "It is only an opinion". You have an opinion which some may agree with and from other member's post, disagree. That is all your have, an opinion. Once you begin linking your thought with reality, as per your rants of "evolutionary theory leads to X" you are attempting to justify your opinion with facts and models. You are doing exactly what you are ranting against... You are using a model for justification based on evidence...

Well said and worked out post, of course, your opponent resorted to his usual diversions. I'm sorry he is not a worthy opponent for you. And of course, I agree with your premises.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Well said and worked out post, of course, your opponent resorted to his usual diversions. I'm sorry he is not a worthy opponent for you. And of course, I agree with your premises.

Transparent debating tactics because you got no argumentation. All nonsense. You all got nothing.

I did my homework, what I say is solid.

You all reject subjectivity, and that's not hallal.

 

[ArtieE]

That is some kind of diatribe about the supposed worthlessness of opinion, and the uber superiority of facts. Rejection of subjectivity, pure evil.

"Pure evil"? So some things are evil irrespective of opinion then?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

"Pure evil"? So some things are evil irrespective of opinion then?

You are reduced to begging for the drugs associated to absolute confidence, which the brain produces when what is good and evil is asserted as fact.

 

[ArtieE]

You are reduced to begging for the drugs associated to absolute confidence, which the brain produces when what is good and evil is asserted as fact.

You are reduced to begging for the drugs associated to absolute confidence, which the brain produces when you assert as a fact "Rejection of subjectivity, pure evil."