I see no value in atheism

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

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.

It's proof that you reject subjectivity.

When we consider things reasonably, lay these 2 definitions side by side, and see which one is in accordance with how subjectivity works in common discourse, then there is no doubt about it whatsoever, that subjectivity based on choosing is how it works in common discourse.

Then one might still argue that common discourse is wrong to use this logic of choosing. The logical structure is then that the statement "the painting is beautiful " is forced by a function of the position from which is viewed + what the viewer conists of + the painting. And repositioning the obvserver, or changing the observer, or the painting etc. may then result in the statement "the painting is ugly". We might then draw a chaotic map of different positions from which is viewed, and color the positions from which the opion "ugly" results red, and color the positions from which the opinion "beautiful" results red.

And rather than continuing this train of thought, we might also just throw the whole idea in the garbage......

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

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?

My translation is: agony, agony, I need a shot....

Democracy is based around choosing. Duh............ Why you come up with democracy to deny choosing?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Why can't you answer their question?

I see now what you consider reasoning.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It's proof that you reject subjectivity.

No it isn't, because I don't. Subjectivity exists, I accept that it exists, and I do not reject it in any way.

When we consider things reasonably, lay these 2 definitions side by side, and see which one is in accordance with how subjectivity works in common discourse, then there is no doubt about it whatsoever, that subjectivity based on choosing is how it works in common discourse.

This argument makes no sense. You don't understand the definition of subjectivity.

Then one might still argue that common discourse is wrong to use this logic of choosing. The logical structure is then that the statement "the painting is beautiful " is forced by a function of the position from which is viewed + what the viewer conists of + the painting. And repositioning the obvserver, or changing the observer, or the painting etc. may then result in the statement "the painting is ugly". We might then draw a chaotic map of different positions from which is viewed, and color the positions from which the opion "ugly" results red, and color the positions from which the opinion "beautiful" results red.

And rather than continuing this train of thought, we might also just throw the whole idea in the garbage......

Why? It makes perfect sense. What we think of things is a result of its form and function as well as our own experiences and perspectives. That is called subjectivity. There isn't any "choice" involved in finding something ugly or beautiful - both are subjective conclusions reached by largely subconscious mental processes.

Choice, on the other hand, comes into play when we are presented with two or more options. If someone presents you with two paintings and says you get to pick one to keep, you may - for example - CHOOSE a painting based on whichever painting you think is more beautiful. However, other factors may come into play, such as having a partner who you think would prefer the other painting, even if you think it is the uglier of the two, so you may pick that one. Or you may choose whichever painting you think will be worth more money, or whichever painting you feel makes you look more distinguished.

Choices and subjectivity both absolutely exist and are real and relevant in our lives. The problem you have is that YOU clearly don't understand what they are.

 

[ArtieE]

Democracy is based around choosing. Duh............ Why you come up with democracy to deny choosing?

So if you choose to go around murdering people democracy shouldn't deny you that because that's your choice?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Why? It makes perfect sense. What we think of things is a result of its form and function as well as our own experiences and perspectives. That is called subjectivity. There isn't any "choice" involved in finding something ugly or beautiful - both are subjective conclusions reached by largely subconscious mental processes.

Authoritarian huffing and puffing is no argument. You should argue that your definition is in line with common discourse, because there are some issues with trying to change common discourse starting from an internetforum. And we all know that in common discourse freedom is regarded as a reality, and that freedom is integral to subjectivity. And this works perfectly logically. Somebody can express the opinion it is good. They then can express the opinion it is bad. Then good again, then bad, then good, then good. Freedom of opinion.

Choice, on the other hand, comes into play when we are presented with two or more options. If someone presents you with two paintings and says you get to pick one to keep, you may - for example - CHOOSE a painting based on whichever painting you think is more beautiful. However, other factors may come into play, such as having a partner who you think would prefer the other painting, even if you think it is the uglier of the two, so you may pick that one. Or you may choose whichever painting you think will be worth more money, or whichever painting you feel makes you look more distinguished.

Choices and subjectivity both absolutely exist and are real and relevant in our lives. The problem you have is that YOU clearly don't understand what they are.

It is of course your craving for knowledge of good and evil why you conceive of choosing as sorting out the best result, with the knowledge of good and evil as sorting criteria. (like natural selection sorts out the fittest organism). Morality works like this, when you are high on drugs, no matter what you choose, by reasonable judgement it will be judged evil. This idea that for a choice you always have a lesser and a better option, is nonsense. And with the spontaneity of a happy spirit, it does not matter at all which way the decisions turn out.

So you can see how the evil-utionists are enslaving mankind to knowledge of good and evil. It's ridiculous evil.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

So if you choose to go around murdering people democracy shouldn't deny you that because that's your choice?

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]

Authoritarian huffing and puffing is no argument.

We shall add "authoritarian" on to the list of words you don't seem to know the definition of.

You should argue that your definition is in line with common discourse, because there are some issues with trying to change common discourse starting from an internetforum.

I'm not changing common discourse. It's commonly accepted that a personal preference or perspective is not a matter of "choice". Only you seem to have a problem with that, nobody else I haver ever spoken to on the subject does.

And we all know that in common discourse freedom is regarded as a reality, and that freedom is integral to subjectivity. And this works perfectly logically. Somebody can express the opinion it is good. They then can express the opinion it is bad. Then good again, then bad, then good, then good. Freedom of opinion.

I never said anything that ever contradicted that.

It is of course your craving for knowledge of good and evil why you conceive of choosing as sorting out the best result, with the knowledge of good and evil as sorting criteria. (like natural selection sorts out the fittest organism). Morality works like this, when you are high on drugs, no matter what you choose, by reasonable judgement it will be judged evil. This idea that for a choice you always have a lesser and a better option, is nonsense. And with the spontaneity of a happy spirit, it does not matter at all which way the decisions turn out.

So you can see how the evil-utionists are enslaving mankind to knowledge of good and evil. It's ridiculous evil.

That has absolutely nothing to do with anything I've said. I've not even mentioned good and evil, and yet here you are acting as if I've written a treatise on it. You are talking nonsense and making accusations you can't support. You don't know what subjectivity is, you don't know what choice is, you don't have a logical or coherent argument and you are apparently not even capable of reading or responding to the arguments put in front of you.

Your argument is poorly constructed, nonsensical and based on fundamental misunderstandings of extremely basic concepts. You are refuted, try a new argument.

 

[Shad]

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.

Being unable to understand logic's required soundness leads your own arguments to a dead-end. Your own sophistry about not following models then correlating, which is a model, with depression due to evolution education is hilarious.

Seems like you have never taken a course on logic in your life so the homework you did was unguided and based nothing but your flawed idea of logic which created the sophistry that your contradict every few posts.

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

You said evil was an opinion so like all opinions without justification I can dismiss it without issues. Again your sophistry is a trap you set for yourself and one you fall into every few posts

 

[Shad]

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"?

Figure 8 reasoning, two circles joined in a closed circuit.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Being unable to understand logic's required soundness leads your own arguments to a dead-end. Your own sophistry about not following models then correlating, which is a model, with depression due to evolution education is hilarious.

Seems like you have never taken a course on logic in your life so the homework you did was unguided and based nothing but your flawed idea of logic which created the sophistry that your contradict every few posts.



You said evil was an opinion so like all opinions without justification I can dismiss it without issues. Again your sophistry is a trap you set for yourself and one you fall into every few posts

I have no doubt about it you can dismiss people's emotions just like that.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

We shall add "authoritarian" on to the list of words you don't seem to know the definition of.


I'm not changing common discourse. It's commonly accepted that a personal preference or perspective is not a matter of "choice". Only you seem to have a problem with that, nobody else I haver ever spoken to on the subject does.


I never said anything that ever contradicted that.


That has absolutely nothing to do with anything I've said. I've not even mentioned good and evil, and yet here you are acting as if I've written a treatise on it. You are talking nonsense and making accusations you can't support. You don't know what subjectivity is, you don't know what choice is, you don't have a logical or coherent argument and you are apparently not even capable of reading or responding to the arguments put in front of you.

Your argument is poorly constructed, nonsensical and based on fundamental misunderstandings of extremely basic concepts. You are refuted, try a new argument.

None of what you write is worth responding to. You should try using ceationist philosophy, as Ive explained it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

None of what you write is worth responding to. You should try using ceationist philosophy, as Ive explained it.

You have literally explained nothing this entire time, just supported your baseless accusations with more baseless accusations. All you do is ignore arguments raised against you with nonsense like "You reject subjectivity". You are not even trying to understand or reason with anyone. I don't even know the point of your posts if you're not even going to try and understand any other people's views. You lack logic, respect and any good reason to engage in any of these kinds of debates.

 

[Willamena]

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.

Do you suppose facts to be unchangeable? Perhaps that's why I don't understand what you're saying. Facts are changeable, they can be overwritten by new and improved facts--greater information overwriting the lesser information. Information is incremental, and we are a product of the ever-expanding/ever-shrinking universe.

For me, to say that "good" or "agency" are a fact is simply to say that they are what they are, that the information they represent is meaningful and useful. We have agency, we have opinions. They are what they are.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You have literally explained nothing this entire time, just supported your baseless accusations with more baseless accusations. All you do is ignore arguments raised against you with nonsense like "You reject subjectivity". You are not even trying to understand or reason with anyone. I don't even know the point of your posts if you're not even going to try and understand any other people's views. You lack logic, respect and any good reason to engage in any of these kinds of debates.

That's untrue, i've provided an extensive explanation with example, then copied it 10 times.

You reject subjectivity, because you reject choosing is essential to subjectivity. Just like Dennett rejects free will, because he denies he could have done otherwise.

 

[Bunyip]

That's untrue, i've provided an extensive explanation with example, then copied it 10 times.

You reject subjectivity, because you reject choosing is essential to subjectivity. Just like Dennett rejects free will, because he denies he could have done otherwise.

Yes you have repeated it 10 times, but I'm afraid it won't make any more sense by repetition. Nobody is rejecting subjectivity. And doing so is unrelated to atheism,

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Do you suppose facts to be unchangeable? Perhaps that's why I don't understand what you're saying. Facts are changeable, they can be overwritten by new and improved facts--greater information overwriting the lesser information. Information is incremental, and we are a product of the ever-expanding/ever-shrinking universe.

For me, to say that "good" or "agency" are a fact is simply to say that they are what they are, that the information they represent is meaningful and useful. We have agency, we have opinions. They are what they are.

Facts are not changeable obviously. There may be more details, or they may be wrong. I'm sitting in a train. How you want to change such a fact? You are fantasizing.

Obviously you use a different definition of fact for agency than for the rest, otherwise with the same definition all sorts of logical errors arise.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Yes you have repeated it 10 times, but I'm afraid it won't make any more sense by repetition. Nobody is rejecting subjectivity. And doing so is unrelated to atheism,

That is all your problem, the explanation is fine. Everything shows you are patholigically against the logic of freedom. It's not like you theorize on the basis that freedom is real yourself.

 

[Bunyip]

That is all your problem, the explanation is fine. Everything shows you are patholigically against the logic of freedom. It's not like you theorize on the basis that freedom is real yourself.

That doesn't mean anything mate. I am not at all pathologically against the logic of freedom, in fact I don't think that accusation actually means anything at all.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

That doesn't mean anything mate. I am not at all pathologically against the logic of freedom, in fact I don't think that accusation actually means anything at all.

It means for instance that your mind just goes blank whenever freedom is mentioned and that you don't understand the meaning of it.