I see no value in atheism

[ImmortalFlame]

Again, fact applies to creation, and opinion applies to the creator.

Arbitrary definitions. Might as well just say "Fact applies to the fish, and opinion applies to the fisherman" or "Fact applies to the ham, and opinion applies to the hamster." It's meaningless nonsense.

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.

Your language is convoluted and confused. You're not making any sense, either linguistically or logically. Can you put this in simpler terms?

I explained it 10 times, you understood nothing, and are refusing to consider this procedure of reaching the conclusion by choosing it.

From our exchanges, its clear that you are the one who is refusing to consider my view, and your arguments are only difficult to understand because they make absolutely no sense.

How can it be that you absolutely refuse to consider the procedure of reaching the conclusion by choosing it?

Have I? I never said you can't choose your conclusion; what I have said is that when you do choose a conclusion, it is as a result of some consideration.

Indeed, "magic" is how a decision turns out one way instead of the other.

Prove it.

The issue is categorically outside of science.

Decision theory and the computational theory of the mind beg to differ.

Also, prove it.

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.

You clearly don't know what a social Darwinist is.

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

I've repeatedly stated that reasons don't FORCE a result! Are you even reading my posts? My point is that when you make a choice or a decision you do so because of the reasons you reached that decision. This is basic logic.

Since you have not responded to my challenge, I can only assume you cannot think of a single example of when you made a choice that wasn't made because you had a reason to make it. Therefore, your argument is completely vacuous and not based in reality.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Arbitrary definitions. Might as well just say "Fact applies to the fish, and opinion applies to the fisherman" or "Fact applies to the ham, and opinion applies to the hamster." It's meaningless nonsense.


Your language is convoluted and confused. You're not making any sense, either linguistically or logically. Can you put this in simpler terms?


From our exchanges, its clear that you are the one who is refusing to consider my view, and your arguments are only difficult to understand because they make absolutely no sense.


Have I? I never said you can't choose your conclusion; what I have said is that when you do choose a conclusion, it is as a result of some consideration.


Prove it.


Decision theory and the computational theory of the mind beg to differ.

Also, prove it.


You clearly don't know what a social Darwinist is.


I've repeatedly stated that reasons don't FORCE a result! Are you even reading my posts? My point is that when you make a choice or a decision you do so because of the reasons you reached that decision. This is basic logic.

Since you have not responded to my challenge, I can only assume you cannot think of a single example of when you made a choice that wasn't made because you had a reason to make it. Therefore, your argument is completely vacuous and not based in reality.

Still no consideration of reaching the conclusion by choosing it.....

Rank pathology against subjectivity, clear social darwinism of a sort.

 

[Willamena]

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.

I disagree with all of these statements.

 

[leibowde84]

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 do you consider to be the "validity of opinions"? That is what I am having the most trouble with. I have never suggested that opinions don't matter, but they are purely subjective. Having said this, it must be obvious that I do, in fact, believe in the existence of subjectivity. But, there is a difference in value when discussing what reality is, the idea of creation, the idea of God, etc. Opinion doesn't get anyone very far when trying to decipher objective truth (or truth that exists apart from the individual). Would you agree?

 

[leibowde84]

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.

Thank you for that explanation, btw. I appreciate it. I feel like a gained a bit of understanding as to where you are coming from. The isssue I have is that I agree with all of this, and I have never suggested otherwise.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

This is completely unreasonable. It isn't all one way or all the other. That would be ridiculous. It seems like you are saying that if one rejects subjectivity in one specific circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude that they reject subjectivity in every circumstance (or all together). But, that couldn't be, as it is completely irrational.

 

[leibowde84]

I disagree with all of these statements.

Didn't you say that "poopy-head" meant something to you? Don't you think that otherss might have other definitions of the word, assuming that yours is difinitive?

 

[Willamena]

Didn't you say that "poopy-head" meant something to you? Don't you think that otherss might have other definitions of the word, assuming that yours is difinitive?

The only definitive meaning of the word is what I intend to say when I use the word.

 

[leibowde84]

The only definitive meaning of the word is what I intend to say when I use the word.

So, words can mean whatever the speaker wants them to? Doesn't that make language useless? If there is no agreed upon meanings for terms, what is the point of developing languages. The meaning of words can change at the speaker's will, right?

 

[Willamena]

So, words can mean whatever the speaker wants them to? Doesn't that make language useless? If there is no agreed upon meanings for terms, what is the point of developing languages. The meaning of words can change at the speaker's will, right?

The world is not often whatever a person wants it to be, so it's not often that a word means whatever a person wants it to. That defies what definition is about.

Rather, I said that it means whatever I intend to say.

 

[leibowde84]

The world is not often whatever a person wants it to be, so it's not often that a word means whatever a person wants it to. That defies what definition is about.

Rather, I said that it means whatever I intend to say.

How is that any different? Or are you being facetious and saying YOU literally get to decide, not the person speaking? If you say that the word means what the speaker intends it to mean, that is effectively saying the speaker can use any word to express any meaning. If this is true, the person on the other end of the communication would have absolutely no idea what the speaker was talking about ... or, worse, they would define words by their own definition and might get a completely different meaning than the speaker intended.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

What do you consider to be the "validity of opinions"? That is what I am having the most trouble with. I have never suggested that opinions don't matter, but they are purely subjective. Having said this, it must be obvious that I do, in fact, believe in the existence of subjectivity. But, there is a difference in value when discussing what reality is, the idea of creation, the idea of God, etc. Opinion doesn't get anyone very far when trying to decipher objective truth (or truth that exists apart from the individual). Would you agree?

It is all suggesting opinions are worthless obviously. The way your argument works towards objective truth. Disgusting rejection of subjectivity. You reject subjectivity, or more precisely, you reject reaching the conclusion about what the agency of a decision is, by choosing the conclusion.

 

[Willamena]

How is that any different? Or are you being facetious and saying YOU literally get to decide, not the person speaking? If you say that the word means what the speaker intends it to mean, that is effectively saying the speaker can use any word to express any meaning. If this is true, the person on the other end of the communication would have absolutely no idea what the speaker was talking about ... or, worse, they would define words by their own definition and might get a completely different meaning than the speaker intended.

I'm not being facetious: there's no humour in what I said. Did you intend that 'facetious' be about something else, though?

I'm talking about intention, but you seem to feel that the term 'definition' is threatened by what I say. It's not.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

This is completely unreasonable. It isn't all one way or all the other. That would be ridiculous. It seems like you are saying that if one rejects subjectivity in one specific circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude that they reject subjectivity in every circumstance (or all together). But, that couldn't be, as it is completely irrational.

It's not neccessarily irrational, it is just completely unemotional. You can still add 2 + 2 = 4 but you cannot deal with any emotive term properly.

 

[leibowde84]

It is all suggesting opinions are worthless obviously. The way your argument works towards objective truth. Disgusting rejection of subjectivity. You reject subjectivity, or more precisely, you reject reaching the conclusion about what the agency of a decision is, by choosing the conclusion.

I am not doing that. You are confused I think. I never said that opinions have no value. But can you answer my question?

 

[leibowde84]

It's not neccessarily irrational, it is just completely unemotional. You can still add 2 + 2 = 4 but you cannot deal with any emotive term properly.

If it all subjective/opinion, how can you claim it can be done "properly", which is an objective classification by definition.

 

[leibowde84]

I'm not being facetious: there's no humour in what I said. Did you intend that 'facetious' be about something else, though?

I'm talking about intention, but you seem to feel that the term 'definition' is threatened by what I say. It's not.

That is exactly what I am having trouble with. If anyone can use any term with any meaning, how could this not destroy the notion of definitions?

 

[Bunyip]

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

You are still not making sense matey.

 

[Willamena]

That is exactly what I am having trouble with. If anyone can use any term with any meaning, how could this not destroy the notion of definitions?

Because nothing said with intent is said using words that mean just anything. It's very hard to get your intent across that way.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Still no consideration of reaching the conclusion by choosing it.....

Then you're obviously not reading or understanding my posts.

Rank pathology against subjectivity, clear social darwinism of a sort.

I don't think you understand what pathology, subjectivity or Darwinsm even mean. You have done nothing but rave and repeat your same meaningless argument no matter how many times I refute it.