I see no value in atheism

[ImmortalFlame]

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

And I gave a thorough response which showed your logic was poor, your definitions inaccurate, and your conclusion was nothing but a non-sequitur.

You reject subjectivity, because you reject choosing is essential to subjectivity.

Because it is. Subjectivity isn't dependent on "choice", it's dependent on perspective. You can't "choose" your perspective (although, it can be argued, you CAN choose to try viewing something from somebody else's perspective - but that doesn't mean that YOUR perspective is a matter of choice).

Just like Dennett rejects free will, because he denies he could have done otherwise.

That's not even remotely comparable. I've already explained how choice works, and I've already explained how subjectivity works. They are two different things.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

And I gave a thorough response which showed your logic was poor, your definitions inaccurate, and your conclusion was nothing but a non-sequitur.


Because it is. Subjectivity isn't dependent on "choice", it's dependent on perspective. You can't "choose" your perspective (although, it can be argued, you CAN choose to try viewing something from somebody else's perspective - but that doesn't mean that YOUR perspective is a matter of choice).


That's not even remotely comparable. I've already explained how choice works, and I've already explained how subjectivity works. They are two different things.

Your defintion of choosing uses a logic of sorting, sorting out the best result, and sorting basically uses a logic of being forced. The result is forced by the sorting criteria. Your idea about subjectivity also uses a logic of being forced.

Those definitions don't work on a fundamental level. You can make it look similar to choosing, by using chaos, so that it does not appear ridiculous at the surface. But fundamentally you will neccessarily end up equating opinion with fact, and equating freedom with force. Fundamentally by your logic the person is forced to the conclusion that the painting is beautiful, just as they are forced to the conclusion the painting is of 5 sheep in a meadow.

And how the person reaches the conclusion beautiful is then by sorting, so then you will say the person is choosing (despite what you say now that the person isn't choosing). And then freedom becomes to mean that the person is not stopped from choosing/sorting.

And real freedom, that a person can actually go left or right, you will then call randomness. And you will have no word at all to describe the actual act that left instead of right "occurs", the decision, because you already used the word decision to mean sorting out the best result.

You see, I know better how you deal with things than you do yourself. You made an error that you said subjectivity has nothing to do with choosing. You should have said that choosing is essential to subjectivity, but that choosing uses a logic of being forced, sorting out the best result.

It is all just pathology of wanting to know as fact what is good and evil, working it's way through the dictionary, so that the meaning of every word is twisted to use a logic of cause and effect, because that is consistent with asserting good and evil as fact.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Your defintion of choosing uses a logic of sorting, sorting out the best result, and sorting basically uses a logic of being forced. The result is forced by the sorting criteria. Your idea about subjectivity also uses a logic of being forced.

No it isn't. Nothing "forces" you to make a choice. My explanation which simply a demonstration that there are lots of different factors which can influence our decisions based on circumstances. Are you arguing that there is no thought process which goes into any decision we make?

Those definitions don't work on a fundamental level. You can make it look similar to choosing, by using chaos, so that it does not appear ridiculous at the surface. But fundamentally you will neccessarily end up equating opinion with fact, and equating freedom with force. Fundamentally by your logic the person is forced to the conclusion that the painting is beautiful, just as they are forced to the conclusion the painting is of 5 sheep in a meadow.

They aren't "forced" to the conclusion, they just don't "choose" it. Preference is not a matter of choice, it is a matter of perspective enforced by individual circumstances and mental processes. Why is that so hard for you to accept?

And how the person reaches the conclusion beautiful is then by sorting, so then you will say the person is choosing (despite what you say now that the person isn't choosing).

No they aren't! Why do I have to explain this so many times in so many different ways. They didn't "choose" their reaction - you can't "choose" to find something beautiful. You're talking nonsense.

And then freedom becomes to mean that the person is not stopped from choosing/sorting.

No, they just can't choose how they react to something internally. They may still choose how to react in many other ways. For example, if my girlfriend puts on a dress that I find ugly, I may CHOOSE to react by telling her she looks beautiful. That doesn't mean I didn't have an involuntary, negative reaction.

And real freedom, that a person can actually go left or right, you will then call randomness.

No I wouldn't. I just spent a long time explaining that lots of different factors can be taken into consideration when making a choice. That's the opposite of random.

And you will have no word at all to describe the actual act that left instead of right "occurs", the decision, because you already used the word decision to mean sorting out the best result.

Because that's literally what decision means. Take it up with a dictionary.

You see, I know better how you deal with things than you do yourself.

Considering the jumbled mass of confusion that your argument is, I doubt that.

You made an error that you said subjectivity has nothing to do with choosing.

There's no necessary causal relationship, yes. You can have a subjective experience without "choosing" anything. Choosing implies agency.

You should have said that choosing is essential to subjectivity, but that choosing uses a logic of being forced, sorting out the best result.

So, tell me, next time you see something you find ugly, prove me wrong by simply "choosing" to find it beautiful instead.

It is all just pathology of wanting to know as fact what is good and evil, working it's way through the dictionary, so that the meaning of every word is twisted to use a logic of cause and effect, because that is consistent with asserting good and evil as fact.

Nonsensical.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Because that's literally what decision means. Take it up with a dictionary.

No, decision means to make an alternative future the present, or to make a possible future the present or not.

Choosing as sorting is quite different, it requires 2 objects in the present at least, while otherwise you can simply have 1 object in the present anticipating the future.

Your idea about subjectivity is that robots can do it. It is purely mechanistic. You got to accept that subjectivity involves choosing, otherwise it will just be ridiculous on the face of it.

Or if not, then you will have the added problem of agency of a decision, which is not a subjective issue according to you.

How then does any person go left instead of right, when it is in fact true that they can go either direction? What is the agency of the decision?

Remember that if it is shown that you argue that this person is forced to go right instead of left, that you point at factors which force the person to go right, then alll your ideas you have explained thusfar, collapse.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No decision means to make an alternative future the present, or to make a possible future the present or not.

decision
noun

1. a conclusion or resolution reached after consideration.

SOURCES:
Decision | Definition of decision by Merriam-Webster
Decision | Define Decision at Dictionary.com
decision - definition of decision by The Free Dictionary

Choosing as sorting is quite different, it requires 2 objects in the present at least, while otherwise you can simply have 1 object in the present anticipating the future.

This makes no sense. If you only have one option, you don't have a choice.

Your idea about subjectivity is that robots can do it. It is purely mechanistic. You got to accept that subjectivity involves choosing, otherwise it will just be ridiculous on the face of it.

Why? What's wrong with subjectivity or choosing being mechanistic? They are functions of the brain, and the brain is a form of biological mechanism. What's ridiculous about that?

Or if not, then you will have the added problem of agency of a decision, which is not a subjective issue according to you.

Where did I say agency in decision making is not a subjective issue? I believe I've made it very clear that the criteria by which me make decisions IS subjective. What I contest is that subjectivity is "ABOUT" choosing, which it isn't.

How then does any person go left instead of right, when it is in fact true that they can go either direction? What is the agency of the decision?

There could be any number of reasons why they may choose to go left rather than right. When I leave work, I turn left on the street because that's where my bus stop is. Are you suggesting that the decision to turn one way rather than another is never influenced by any factors whatsoever?

Remember that if it is shown that you argue that this person is forced to go right instead of left, that you point at factors which force the person to go right, then alll your ideas you have explained thusfar, collapse.

This sentence also makes no sense. Your entire argument is just garbled word salad.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

decision
noun

1. a conclusion or resolution reached after consideration.

SOURCES:
Decision | Definition of decision by Merriam-Webster
Decision | Define Decision at Dictionary.com
decision - definition of decision by The Free Dictionary


This makes no sense. If you only have one option, you don't have a choice.


Why? What's wrong with subjectivity or choosing being mechanistic? They are functions of the brain, and the brain is a form of biological mechanism. What's ridiculous about that?


Where did I say agency in decision making is not a subjective issue? I believe I've made it very clear that the criteria by which me make decisions IS subjective. What I contest is that subjectivity is "ABOUT" choosing, which it isn't.


There could be any number of reasons why they may choose to go left rather than right. When I leave work, I turn left on the street because that's where my bus stop is. Are you suggesting that the decision to turn one way rather than another is never influenced by any factors whatsoever?


This sentence also makes no sense. Your entire argument is just garbled word salad.

Your ideas about how choosing works is a jumbled mess. My ideas work without any logical contradictions. Attaching a different logic to the way an opion is arrived at, than to how a fact is obtained, makes it sure they remain categorically distinct, and that the concepts can absolutely never crash into one another. You only use a logic of being forced, inevitably the concepts are going to crash into each other.

When decision is defined such as that a person can actually go left or right, then you deny it without any reasoning whatsoever. That is a pathology, not even being to able to reason about it.

You can go left for the reason there is the bus stop, you can go right for the reason that there is the hoochie-coochie bar. You have factors force the result, which is another thing entirely than influences. Factors forcing the result denies freedom, and denies agency.

So you deny that people can go left or right, arguing that there is no problem for choosing to be mechanistic. That was not clear to me, because you denied choosing was essential to subjectivity, so then I thought you accepted true freedom, just not that true freedom was inherent in subjectivity. But turns out you don't consider choosing essential to subjectivity, and you also use a logic of being forced for choosing. Totally all over the place, jumbled mess.

 

[leibowde84]

I am not dishonest. I have been straight with you explaining how subjectivity works. You reject it, well obviously it means you reject subjectivity. Which is also shown by that all your words tend toward fact, not opinion.

I have to assume you are basing that on merely your opinion and distorted view of me, based solely on my comments on a single online forum, since they are so mistaken. You are wrong, but it seems that your assumptions about me have made it imposssible for you to reason intelligently about my beliefs. I have been very straight up with you regarding what I believe in regards to subjectivity, yet you still can't get passed your incorrect assumptions.

I think you have a lot of misconceptions about others that prevent you from actually knowing the truth. Best of luck with that.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I have to assume you are basing that on merely your opinion and distorted view of me, based solely on my comments on a single online forum, since they are so mistaken. You are wrong, but it seems that your assumptions about me have made it imposssible for you to reason intelligently about my beliefs. I have been very straight up with you regarding what I believe in regards to subjectivity, yet you still can't get passed your incorrect assumptions.

I think you have a lot of misconceptions about others that prevent you from actually knowing the truth. Best of luck with that.

I explained how subjectivity works, you reject it. Therefore you reject subjectivity.

I am not going to say Dennett accepts free will, eventhough he says he does accept it. He uses a logic of being forced with the concept of free will, explicitly saying he could not have done otherwise than he did. I'm going to say, Dennett rejects free will, and say that you reject subjectivity.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Your ideas about how choosing works is a jumbled mess.

How? It's literally identical to the definition in the dictionary: people make decisions by taking account of various factors and reaching a conclusion. How is that a jumbled mess?

My ideas work without any logical contradictions.

No, they don't work at all. Unless you want to argue that decisions and choices made by people are NEVER a product of consideration, your argument is nonsensical.

Attaching a different logic to the way an opion is arrived at, than to how a fact is obtained, makes it sure they remain categorically distinct, and that the concepts can absolutely never crash into one another. You only use a logic of being forced, inevitably the concepts are going to crash into each other.

Again, this is just jumbled word salad. I have already explained the difference between subjectivity and fact, and the difference in the process of obtaining or processing them. What is so difficult for you to understand?

When decision is defined such as that a person can actually go left or right, then you deny it without any reasoning whatsoever. That is a pathology, not even being to able to reason about it.

More word salad. What am I denying? That people can go either right or left? Of course they can. Are you contesting that the way that people choose to go is a result of consideration? Do you honestly think the directions in which people walk is determined entirely at random with no matter of preference at all?

You can go left for the reason there is the bus stop, you can go right for the reason that there is the hoochie-coochie bar.

That is correct - especially where I work.

You have factors force the result, which is another thing entirely than influences. Factors forcing the result denies freedom, and denies agency.

Nothing "forces" me to make any particular choice other than my particular preference at that time based on an almost unlimited number of factors. Most of the time, my overriding desire is the desire to go home via the bus, so I go left. I COULD still go right, if I wished, but that would only be because I DECIDE to go right instead based on a different set of factors. In your mind, freedom cannot exist if you have reasons behind making a particular decision, which means essentially you are arguing that freedom can only exist if you make a decision at random, without any influence of any kind. That is obviously absurd.

So you deny that people can go left or right, arguing that there is no problem for choosing to be mechanistic.

No, people can go left or right. But their decision to go left or to go right is influenced by various factors. People don't do things without a reason for doing them (although I'm sure we're capable of it).

How many times have you reached an intersection, stopped, flipped a coin, and used the result to determine which way you should go? I'm guessing the answer will be "almost never" (then again, even THAT result is determined by the amount of influence you ascribe to the coin - i.e: even if you only went left because the coin came up heads, it was still your decision to go in a random direction determined by the toss of a coin in the first place).

That was not clear to me, because you denied choosing was essential to subjectivity, so then I thought you accepted true freedom, just not that true freedom was inherent in subjectivity.

To you, "true freedom" apparently means "not having reasons for doing anything". Sorry. I believe in freedom, but I don't believe human beings are capable of removing our own brains.

 

[leibowde84]

I explained how subjectivity works, you reject it. Therefore you reject subjectivity.

I am not going to say Dennett accepts free will, eventhough he says he does accept it. He uses a logic of being forced with the concept of free will, explicitly saying he could not have done otherwise than he did. I'm going to say, Dennett rejects free will, and say that you reject subjectivity.

Please provide my comment where I rejected subjectivity. If you are unable to provide my quote where I assert that subjectivity does not exist, I have to assume you are basing this belief on incorrect assumptions.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Nothing "forces" me to make any particular choice other than my particular preference at that time based on an almost unlimited number of factors. Most of the time, my overriding desire is the desire to go home via the bus, so I go left. I COULD still go right, if I wished, but that would only be because I DECIDE to go right instead based on a different set of factors. In your mind, freedom cannot exist if you have reasons behind making a particular decision, which means essentially you are arguing that freedom can only exist if you make a decision at random, without any influence of any kind. That is obviously absurd.

Now you refer back to consideration as what makes the decision turn out the way it does. When you define choosing as sorting out what is best, then always when you are choosing, you are doing the best thing by definition! That is so lame self congratulation every single time you make a decision.

It is nonsense, agency, the spirit or soul chooses. Even without thinking about it one can surmise that it may be neccessary in order to deal with the concept of freedom, to have a category of things the existence of which is established by choosing the conclusion that they are there or not, hence agency, spirit, soul, love, hate, anger etc.. Yet you refuse to even consider it, your mind is a total blank for obvious reasons of self congratulations.......

You can have reasons for left and reasons for right. If you go left, then you have those reasons. And if you go right then you have the other reasons. I don't deny any reasons.

But what you say is different, you say that these reasons are factors which are sorted with an inevitable forced result. You say like, the hoochie coochie bar option weighs 20, and the bust stop option weighs 40, 40 > 20, therefore you go to the busstop.

 

[leibowde84]

What does it mean to be "linguistically verifiable"?

When a question can be answered legitimately. If I asked you "what kind of cheese do you think the moon is made out of", that would be linguistically unverifiable. But, if I asked you "what kind of minerals make up the surface of the moon", that would be linguistically verifiable.

Basically, it is when a question is asked in such a way that it is unanswerable.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Now you refer back to consideration as what makes the decision turn out the way it does. When you define choosing as sorting out what is best, then always when you are choosing, you are doing the best thing by definition!

What do you mean by "the best", exactly? I said people make decisions based on an almost unlimited number of criteria.

That is so lame self congratulation every single time you make a decision.

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that making a decision because you have reasons to make that particular decision is "lame self congratulation"? Next time you want a drink because you're thirsty, maybe you should avoid this "lame self congratulation" by choosing not to drink.

It is nonsense, agency, the spirit or soul chooses.

Prove it.

Even without thinking about it one can surmise that it may be neccessary in order to deal with the concept of freedom, to have a category of things the existence of which is established by choosing the conclusion that they are there or not, hence agency, spirit, soul, love, hate, anger etc.. Yet you refuse to even consider it, your mind is a total blank for obvious reasons of self congratulations.......

Nonsensical word salad. You are honestly saying that the existence of things is established by "choosing the conclusion". In that case, I choose the conclusion that you are made of macaroni. Therefore, you are made of macaroni.

You can have reasons for left and reasons for right. If you go left, then you have those reasons. And if you go right then you have the other reasons. I don't deny any reasons.

But you are suggesting that having reasons to do something somehow means that you reject subjectivity or free will. This is nonsense.

But what you say is different, you say that these reasons are factors which are sorted with an inevitable forced result.

No I didn't! I have REPEATEDLY said that NO DECISION IS FORCED. I have repeatedly said that we have reasons to do things - we do not just do them randomly, and this is statement you have just agreed with.

You say like, the hoochie coochie bar option weighs 20, and the bust stop option weighs 40, 40 > 20, therefore you go to the busstop.

No, what I have said is "I may have reasons to do one over the other". How do you propose that people arrive at a particular conclusion? Magic? Flipping a coin? Do we all have an internal, ethereal, magic eight ball that we consult?

This discussion can be ended fairly easy. All you need to do is provide me a single a example of a time in your life when you were presented with a choice, and you made your decision without any kind of of personal preference or without being influenced by any other factors.

 

[Willamena]

When a question can be answered legitimately. If I asked you "what kind of cheese do you think the moon is made out of", that would be linguistically unverifiable. But, if I asked you "what kind of minerals make up the surface of the moon", that would be linguistically verifiable.

Basically, it is when a question is asked in such a way that it is unanswerable.

In that case, "poopy-head" is not vague. By the word, I mean something very specific.

Edit: As I said earlier, opinion expresses what I think or feel--in this case, something specific that I think or feel--rather than expressing something about the world (fact). Though it has no exterior referent, it does not lack for clarity.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You are honestly saying that the existence of things is established by "choosing the conclusion". In that case, I choose the conclusion that you are made of macaroni. Therefore, you are made of macaroni.

Again, fact applies to creation, and opinion applies to the creator. I have repeated that 10 times already. That for some things the conclusion it exists is reached by choosing the conclusion, does not mean that for all things the conclusion it exists or not is reached by choosing. Only for the issue of what the agency of a decision is, is the conclusion reached by choosing it.

I explained it 10 times, you understood nothing, and are refusing to consider this procedure of reaching the conclusion by choosing it. How can it be that you absolutely refuse to consider the procedure of reaching the conclusion by choosing it? You pretend to love choosing just as any other, then consider this procedure which involves choosing.........

No, what I have said is "I may have reasons to do one over the other". How do you propose that people arrive at a particular conclusion? Magic? Flipping a coin? Do we all have an internal, ethereal, magic eight ball that we consult?

Indeed, "magic" is how a decision turns out one way instead of the other. The issue is categorically outside of science. That is how what is good and evil is categorically not a scientific issue. The goodness of the man made the decision turn out the way it did. And to deny it means of course that you are a social darwinist.

This discussion can be ended fairly easy. All you need to do is provide me a single a example of a time in your life when you were presented with a choice, and you made your decision without any kind of of personal preference or without being influenced by any other factors.

I already explained that different options can have different reasons attached. That does not mean reasons forcing a result.

 

[leibowde84]

In that case, "poopy-head" is not vague. By the word, I mean something very specific.

Edit: As I said earlier, opinion expresses what I think or feel--in this case, something specific that I think or feel--rather than expressing something about the world. Though it has no exterior referent, it does not lack for clarity.

I am sure that you might know what you mean by "poopy-head", but your definition doesn't really do any good, as it is purely subjective. Objectively, the word is vague and undefined, as people have their own differing meanings of the term. There is no real definition, as it varies from person to person. It is almost a "term of art" in that way.

 

[leibowde84]

Again, fact applies to creation, and opinion applies to the creator. I have repeated that 10 times already. That for some things the conclusion it exists is reached by choosing the conclusion, does not mean that for all things the conclusion it exists or not is reached by choosing. Only for the issue of what the agency of a decision is, is the conclusion reached by choosing it.

I explained it 10 times, you understood nothing, and are refusing to consider this procedure of reaching the conclusion by choosing it. How can it be that you absolutely refuse to consider the procedure of reaching the conclusion by choosing it? You pretend to love choosing just as any other, then consider this procedure which involves choosing.........




Indeed, "magic" is how a decision turns out one way instead of the other. The issue is categorically outside of science. That is how what is good and evil is categorically not a scientific issue. The goodness of the man made the decision turn out the way it did. And to deny it means of course that you are a social darwinist.



I already explained that different options can have different reasons attached. That does not mean reasons forcing a result.

"Fact applies to creation and opinion applies to [the] creator."

- What do you mean by this? Can you explain specifically what you mean. I ask because this is an extremely vague concept that really doesn't "say" anything. It is just a claim without any kind of substantiation to back it up. I could easily say that both creation and the creator are subjective, as every piece of information we attain is passed through our subjective experience or senses. Actually, I did provide more substantiation than you that time.

 

[leibowde84]

Your defintion of choosing uses a logic of sorting, sorting out the best result, and sorting basically uses a logic of being forced. The result is forced by the sorting criteria. Your idea about subjectivity also uses a logic of being forced.

Those definitions don't work on a fundamental level. You can make it look similar to choosing, by using chaos, so that it does not appear ridiculous at the surface. But fundamentally you will neccessarily end up equating opinion with fact, and equating freedom with force. Fundamentally by your logic the person is forced to the conclusion that the painting is beautiful, just as they are forced to the conclusion the painting is of 5 sheep in a meadow.

And how the person reaches the conclusion beautiful is then by sorting, so then you will say the person is choosing (despite what you say now that the person isn't choosing). And then freedom becomes to mean that the person is not stopped from choosing/sorting.

And real freedom, that a person can actually go left or right, you will then call randomness. And you will have no word at all to describe the actual act that left instead of right "occurs", the decision, because you already used the word decision to mean sorting out the best result.

You see, I know better how you deal with things than you do yourself. You made an error that you said subjectivity has nothing to do with choosing. You should have said that choosing is essential to subjectivity, but that choosing uses a logic of being forced, sorting out the best result.

It is all just pathology of wanting to know as fact what is good and evil, working it's way through the dictionary, so that the meaning of every word is twisted to use a logic of cause and effect, because that is consistent with asserting good and evil as fact.

And, btw, you do realize that when you claim something is subjective, provide no evidence for this, then claim that those that don't agree with you are "evil" is just about the stupidest rout of argument out there, right? It's like a child saying, "you don't understand because you are a poopy-head".

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

"Fact applies to creation and opinion applies to [the] creator."

- What do you mean by this? Can you explain specifically what you mean. I ask because this is an extremely vague concept that really doesn't "say" anything. It is just a claim without any kind of substantiation to back it up. I could easily say that both creation and the creator are subjective, as every piece of information we attain is passed through our subjective experience or senses. Actually, I did provide more substantiation than you that time.

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.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

And, btw, you do realize that when you claim something is subjective, provide no evidence for this, then claim that those that don't agree with you are "evil" is just about the stupidest rout of argument out there, right? It's like a child saying, "you don't understand because you are a poopy-head".

And you realize that when you reject an issue is categorically subjective, and provide no validation of subjectivity whatsoever, that you may be accused of rejecting subjectivity altogether.

The way you talk about the opinion "poopyhead", that it is "no good" because it is subjective, that is tantamount to competing objectivity against subjectivity, to the destruction of subjectivity.