I see no value in atheism

[ImmortalFlame]

So, asserting good and evil as fact is to reject subjectivity, which is pure evil.

To assert something as pure evil is to assert that something is factually evil.

Therefore, to assert that rejecting subjectivity is pure evil is to assert good and evil as fact, which is pure evil.

Is there a variation on circular logic which is, like, a "double-circle"?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

To assert something as pure evil is to assert that something is factually evil.

You provide no reasoning whatsoever that pure evil would mean factually evil.

 

[ArtieE]

You provide no reasoning whatsoever that pure evil would mean factually evil.

So when you said "Rejection of subjectivity, pure evil." that was not a statement of fact. You meant "In my opinion, rejection of subjectivity, pure evil". Right?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You provide no reasoning whatsoever that pure evil would mean factually evil.

You provide no reasoning whatsoever that rejecting subjectivity is pure evil, so my argument is as vacuous as yours. Unless you want to assert that rejecting subjectivity ISN'T "pure evil" except in your opinion.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

So when you said "Rejection of subjectivity, pure evil." that was not a statement of fact. You meant "In my opinion, rejection of subjectivity, pure evil". Right?

Right.

You might have gotten a clue that is what I meant, by the fact that I repeatedly provided solid argumentation how good and evil cannot be matters of fact.

duh.........

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Right.

You might have gotten a clue that is what I meant, by the fact that I repeatedly provided solid argumentation how good and evil cannot be matters of fact.

duh.........

So when you assert that rejection of subjectivity is "pure evil", that is not a factual claim?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You provide no reasoning whatsoever that rejecting subjectivity is pure evil, so my argument is as vacuous as yours. Unless you want to assert that rejecting subjectivity ISN'T "pure evil" except in your opinion.

I just find it disgusting. Rejection of subjectivity also leads to murder , which I also find disgusting.

On the other hand I too enjoy a shot in the arm of absolute confidence by asserting what is good and evil as fact. I too fall for the temptation all the time. Original sin is engrained, in our heads we have a liquor store / drug store, of the drugs the brain can produce itself. That's not so easy to resist.

 

[Mycroft]

I just find it disgusting. Rejection of subjectivity also leads to murder , which I also find disgusting.

So does the embracing of subjectivity. Subjectively, one man's murder is another's sacrifice to the gods.

Subjectively, one man's honour killing, is another man's murder.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I just find it disgusting. Rejection of subjectivity also leads to murder , which I also find disgusting.

Is that a statement of fact, or a statement of opinion? Does "rejection of subjectivity" ALWAYS lead to murder? Does "acceptance of subjectivity" NEVER lead to murder?

On the other hand I too enjoy a shot in the arm of absolute confidence by asserting what is good and evil as fact. I too fall for the temptation all the time. Original sin is engrained, in our heads we have a liquor store / drug store, of the drugs the brain can produce itself. That's not so easy to resist.

You have yet to actually respond to my argument. Do you or do you not assert that "rejection of subjectivity is pure evil" is statement of fact?

 

[ArtieE]

I just find it disgusting. Rejection of subjectivity also leads to murder , which I also find disgusting.

I just find it disgusting. Subjectivity leads to murder. If a person doesn't know murder is wrong but subjectively thinks murder is right nothing stops him from going around murdering people. You are encouraging murderers by saying that murder isn't actually wrong. I find that disgusting.

 

[JoStories]

So, asserting good and evil as fact is to reject subjectivity, which is pure evil.

To assert something as pure evil is to assert that something is factually evil.

Therefore, to assert that rejecting subjectivity is pure evil is to assert good and evil as fact, which is pure evil.

Is there a variation on circular logic which is, like, a "double-circle"?

Exactly flame. It makes no sense at all. Or am I missing something here?

 

[ArtieE]

Subjectively, one man's honour killing, is another man's murder.

"To combat the epidemic of honor killings requires understanding what makes these murders unique. " Worldwide Trends in Honor Killings :: Middle East Quarterly

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

So does the embracing of subjectivity. Subjectively, one man's murder is another's sacrifice to the gods.

Subjectively, one man's honour killing, is another man's murder.

Accepting subjectivity does not preclude murder, but rejection of subjectivity leads to murder. As with the nazi calculations based on regarding the worth of people as fact. There is simply a straight line from rejection of subjectivity to conscience being sabotaged.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I just find it disgusting. Subjectivity leads to murder. If a person doesn't know murder is wrong but subjectively thinks murder is right nothing stops him from going around murdering people. You are encouraging murderers by saying that murder isn't actually wrong. I find that disgusting.

It makes no sense for you to have any emotion whatsoever about it, because you reject subjectivty. Good and evil have nothing to do with emotions, is what you argue.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Exactly flame. It makes no sense at all. Or am I missing something here?

You are missing having any argumentation whatsoever. You have no argument, you reject subjectivity, I've proven it.

 

[Bunyip]

You are missing having any argumentation whatsoever. You have no argument, you reject subjectivity, I've proven it.

Where did you do that?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Where did you do that?

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.

 

[Bunyip]

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.

Sorry what?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Sorry what?

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.

 

[ArtieE]

It makes no sense for you to have any emotion whatsoever about it, because you reject subjectivty.

I don't reject subjectivity. I reject that going around murdering people is right if some murderers subjectively think it is. Again, why do you encourage murderers?