I see no value in atheism

[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.

What are you trying to say?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

What are you trying to say?

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.

That doesn't make any sense mate.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

That doesn't make any sense mate.

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.

What's going on? Did you think just repeating it would suddenly turn it into sense? You are not making a claim that can be addressed, it doesn't make sense.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

What's going on? Did you think just repeating it would suddenly turn it into sense? You are not making a claim that can be addressed, it doesn't make sense.

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.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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

This makes no sense, linguistically or logically. Can you put it in other (better) words?

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.

No it isn't. The book is symbolic representations of a description of the moon. It is not a 1 to 1 copy. A 1 to 1 copy would be a second, actual moon.

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.

Opinions aren't necessarily chosen. I recently saw a movie that I really liked, but my friends disliked. I didn't "choose" to like it - liking it was merely a response to the movie.

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.

Finally, a sentence that makes sense.

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.

Again, the opinion that something is either beautiful or ugly is not a choice. I saw a dead pigeon on the pavement the other day, and it caused a feeling of revulsion at its ugliness. I did not "choose" to find it ugly, it was an involuntary reaction.

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

In a way, you are right. Love is a concept - but it is a concept which is tied to expressions and physical forces that exist in reality. It is the label we give to feelings both felt and expressed in reality.

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.

You're wrong on both. Opinion is a subjective viewpoint based on personal interpretation of particular phenomena or stimuli, and facts are objective truths or observations.

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.

Not only are almost all of your above premises false, this assertion is completely baseless in and of itself - even if we granted all of your argument up to this point. It's nothing but a massive non-sequitur.

 

[JoStories]

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?

A very good question Artie, because IMO, there is no logic to this reasoning. Or am I missing something again? I don't think so but you never know...

 

[JoStories]

Where did you do that?

IMO, he hasn't. He simply keeps reiterating the same thing over and over without substantiation of any kind.

 

[JoStories]

This makes no sense, linguistically or logically. Can you put it in other (better) words?


No it isn't. The book is symbolic representations of a description of the moon. It is not a 1 to 1 copy. A 1 to 1 copy would be a second, actual moon.


Opinions aren't necessarily chosen. I recently saw a movie that I really liked, but my friends disliked. I didn't "choose" to like it - liking it was merely a response to the movie.


Finally, a sentence that makes sense.


Again, the opinion that something is either beautiful or ugly is not a choice. I saw a dead pigeon on the pavement the other day, and it caused a feeling of revulsion at its ugliness. I did not "choose" to find it ugly, it was an involuntary reaction.


In a way, you are right. Love is a concept - but it is a concept which is tied to expressions and physical forces that exist in reality. It is the label we give to feelings both felt and expressed in reality.


You're wrong on both. Opinion is a subjective viewpoint based on personal interpretation of particular phenomena or stimuli, and facts are objective truths or observations.


Not only are almost all of your above premises false, this assertion is completely baseless in and of itself - even if we granted all of your argument up to this point. It's nothing but a massive non-sequitur.

Quick question...can an opinion not be based on fact? For example, I believe that there is no good reason to allow people other than law enforcement to have guns, based on the fact that guns cause too many problems, particularly in the hands of those who don't respect them. Does that then not imply that opinion can be factually based? And of course, the 'other side' can argue, and rightfully so, that guns are a right afforded us by the constitution and that in the right hands, they are more than safe. In that regard, opinion can be both factual and subjective opinion, non?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Again, the opinion that something is either beautiful or ugly is not a choice.

Which means you reject subjectivity. You reject the freedom of opinion, you reject democracy, conscience etc. etc. None of these things work without choosing.

 

[ArtieE]

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.

"Subjectivity refers to how someone’s judgment is shaped by personal opinions and feelings instead of outside influences.Subjectivity is partially responsible for why one person loves an abstract painting while another person hates it.

Since a subject is a person, subjectivity refers to how a person's own uniqueness influences their perceptions. For example, if you have six sisters, that might influence how you view women or families — it's part of your subjectivity. Subjectivity is a form of bias and also individuality. Subjectivity is the opposite of objectivity, which is based purely on the facts and isn't personal. We expect judges to put aside their subjectivity and make decisions based on objectivity. subjectivity - Dictionary Definition : Vocabulary.com

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

IMO, he hasn't. He simply keeps reiterating the same thing over and over without substantiation of any kind.

I provide clear reasoning.

The other's "reasoning" consists of:
- no it isn't
- is not
- non sequitor
- horse merde
- it makes no sense
- i say evil is fact, because it is
- you are saying evil is fact
- the question what the agency of a decision is, is both a matter fact and opinion, because that is the best of both worlds

It's all garbage. You can right see that the contra position is really just based on getting high on absolute confidence by asserting good and evil as fact. There is no reasoning provided whatsoever on how subjectivity works. There is no reasonability whatsoever. The contra-position is just; I like the drugs my brain produces, so I am just going to reject subjectivity and assert good and evil are fact, no matter what.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

"Subjectivity refers to how someone’s judgment is shaped by personal opinions and feelings instead of outside influences.Subjectivity is partially responsible for why one person loves an abstract painting while another person hates it.

Since a subject is a person, subjectivity refers to how a person's own uniqueness influences their perceptions. For example, if you have six sisters, that might influence how you view women or families — it's part of your subjectivity. Subjectivity is a form of bias and also individuality. Subjectivity is the opposite of objectivity, which is based purely on the facts and isn't personal. We expect judges to put aside their subjectivity and make decisions based on objectivity. subjectivity - Dictionary Definition : Vocabulary.com

Wordsalad, because the logic used with the words is not defined.

 

[ArtieE]

It's all garbage. You can right see that the contra position is really just based on getting high on absolute confidence by asserting good and evil as fact. There is no reasoning provided whatsoever on how subjectivity works. There is no reasonability whatsoever. The contra-position is just; I like the drugs my brain produces, so I am just going to reject subjectivity and assert good and evil are fact, no matter what.

So murdering people isn't evil? The murderer isn't doing anything wrong because he is of the subjective opinion that murder is right?

 

[ArtieE]

Which means you reject subjectivity. You reject the freedom of opinion,

If you have the opinion that you should have the freedom to go around murdering people I reject your "subjectivity" and your "freedom of opinion".

you reject democracy,

Living in a democracy doesn't mean that you have the right to go around murdering people if you subjectively feel like.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Which means you reject subjectivity.

No, subjectivity exists. But subjectivity isn't about "choosing", it's about the potential for different conclusions to be reached by viewing the same thing from differing perspectives.

You reject the freedom of opinion, you reject democracy, conscience etc. etc. None of these things work without choosing.

The fact that I don't regard SOME things as being a matter of choice doesn't mean I don't think choice EXISTS or that we CAN make choices. This argument of yours is just foolish equivocation. You don't even understand what subjectivity means, and yet you have the gall to keep accusing me and others of rejecting it. It's ridiculous!

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

So murdering people isn't evil? The murderer isn't doing anything wrong because he is of the subjective opinion that murder is right?

That is just craving desperately to have it be a fact that murder is evil, to get a shot of absolute self confidence.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

That is just craving desperately to have it be a fact that murder is evil, to get a shot of absolute self confidence.

Why can't you answer their question?

 

[ArtieE]

That is just craving desperately to have it be a fact that murder is evil, to get a shot of absolute self confidence.

What do you think will happen if you show up in a western democracy and start murdering people? Do you think your "It is my subjective opinion that I should go around murdering people and I'm not doing anything wrong" defense will go down well with the police?