I see no value in atheism

[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.

That makes no sense. I "reject reaching the conclusion about what the agency of a decision is by choosing the conclusion"? We agree on the agency of any decision as being subjective. We've been over that multiple times. So, what conclusion am I reaching that is incorrect? I am merely pointing out the FACT that objective means of attaining information are more dependable than one's own subjective experience, as personal experience is often flawed. I am not saying in any way that truth cannot come from subjective means, as that would be ridiculous. You have claimed this over and over, but have provided absolutely 0 examples of when I claimed this. You merely make vague claims without backing them up. Subjective truths are real, just as objective truths are. They are both important.

In short, you say that I reject subjectivity. I ask you for an example in my comments where I make this claim. You call me "evil" because, I assume, you actually have no basis for your opinion.

 

[Shad]

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

Dismissed your opinion, not emotions. Strawman and lying again.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

That makes no sense. I "reject reaching the conclusion about what the agency of a decision is by choosing the conclusion"? We agree on the agency of any decision as being subjective. We've been over that multiple times. So, what conclusion am I reaching that is incorrect? I am merely pointing out the FACT that objective means of attaining information are more dependable than one's own subjective experience, as personal experience is often flawed. I am not saying in any way that truth cannot come from subjective means, as that would be ridiculous. You have claimed this over and over, but have provided absolutely 0 examples of when I claimed this. You merely make vague claims without backing them up. Subjective truths are real, just as objective truths are. They are both important.

In short, you say that I reject subjectivity. I ask you for an example in my comments where I make this claim. You call me "evil" because, I assume, you actually have no basis for your opinion.

I read that as saying subjectivity is flawed, undependable, and inferior to objectivity. That is simply rejection of subjectivity. Competing fact against opinion to the surpression of opinion, in stead of acknowledging fact and opinion are valid each in their own right.

It is totally whack to say that the statement "the painting is beautiful", is flawed, undependable, and inferior to objective statements. You make whack comments about subjectivity.

And you still have no idea whatsoever how subjectivity works. How all subjective statements are about the agency of a decision, and how to reach the answer to the question what the agency of a decision is, by choosing the answer.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Dismissed your opinion, not emotions. Strawman and lying again.

You certainly do dismiss people's emotions, because emotions cannot be measured, and you dismiss anything which cannot be measured as irrellevant.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

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

There are 2 rules for opinions. They must be chosen, and the opinion must be in reference to the agency of a decision. If the conclusion is forced, then it is not a logically valid opinion. If it is not in reference to agency, then it is not a logically valid opinion.

I explained that about 10 times already. You aren't reasoning about anything.

 

[Shad]

A rule is a model thus you are forcing an opinion into a model which you are against remember. Agency is a set of rules regarding what can be an agent or not.

If an opinion is forced into a model it become a justified opinion rather than an unjustified For example that are 32 NHL hockey teams which each have a standing in the regular season set by a point system. One could form an opinion that certain teams will win the Stanley Cup. A person which picks a team with a high point standing has a greater justification than one pickings team with a lower standing. One picking a team without the required point to make the playoffs will be the champion is an unjustified and incorrect opinion. This is an example of using a model to identify which opinions are justified thus worth entertaining and which ideas are not.This opinion does not become a fact due to a model. You are mistaken that a model provides facts, a model can provide justification for probability. In this case the model is just a strict evaluation of probability but it does not produce a fact.


I never argued about agency, I argument against your injection of the spiritual into your argument. You would know this if you actually read my comments but you do not. It is easier for you to strawman and red herring others comments rather than putting an effort into addressing the actual arguments presented against you. So try addressing my actually arguments not the imaginary one's in your head.

If the spiritual is just an opinion then nothing prevents me from dismissing your view if I disagree, after all it's an opinion. If spiritual is a fact then you just contradicted yourself.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

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


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.

You refute nothing, you don't reason. You just say it makes "no sense", and then you call that refuting.

The pathology is demonstrated by that you make all words associated to choosing use a logic of being forced. Like the word "choosing", freedom, subjectivity. You all have them use archaic logic of cause and effect. You have subjectivity be a function of position, perspective, which is a simple material parameter just like mass is. And then you begin to talk about "unlimited" factors being involved in subjectivity, because with only a single factor being involved then the logical progression of your idea is shown to be ridiculous. That is the only reason why you appeal to complexity.

It is obvious that subjectivity is based on the inherent mystery that a decision can turn out several different ways. It can turn out left, it can turn out right, we cannot know which way it is going to turn out, because it can turn out either way. Even for very simple decisions it is plain that it is a total mystery what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does. The logic of choosing is obviously essential to subjectivity.

You fail to acknowledge the existence of anything on a subjective basis, by expressing your emotions with free will. Neither God, nor love, or the human spirit, you simply do not do subjectivity. Completely nothing is left for subjectivity, it is all material of one kind or another with you, all fact, and there is no room left for any opinion.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

If the spiritual is just an opinion then nothing prevents me from dismissing your view if I disagree, after all it's an opinion.

Of course when you dismiss people's emotions, then they will return in kind, and also dismiss your emotions.

 

[Shad]

Of course when you dismiss people's emotions, then they will return in kind, and also dismiss your emotions.

Again I dismissed your opinion, didnt dismiss emotions. Again you need to lie to even make a reply comment.

Try address the actual argument next time

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Again I dismissed your opinion, didnt dismiss emotions. Again you need to lie to even make a reply comment.

Try address the actual argument next time

There is no lie, you dismiss opinions because they are not facts. You dismiss emotions because the existence of them is a matter of opinion.

 

[leibowde84]

I read that as saying subjectivity is flawed, undependable, and inferior to objectivity. That is simply rejection of subjectivity. Competing fact against opinion to the surpression of opinion, in stead of acknowledging fact and opinion are valid each in their own right.

It is totally whack to say that the statement "the painting is beautiful", is flawed, undependable, and inferior to objective statements. You make whack comments about subjectivity.

And you still have no idea whatsoever how subjectivity works. How all subjective statements are about the agency of a decision, and how to reach the answer to the question what the agency of a decision is, by choosing the answer.

"I read that as saaying subjectivity is flawed, undependable, aand inferior to objectivity. That is simply a rejection of subjectivity."

- This is an illogical, untrue statement. Pointing out that objective information is often more reliable than subjective opinion is in no way a rejection of subjectivity. There is no "rejection" present.

 

[leibowde84]

There are 2 rules for opinions. They must be chosen, and the opinion must be in reference to the agency of a decision. If the conclusion is forced, then it is not a logically valid opinion. If it is not in reference to agency, then it is not a logically valid opinion.

I explained that about 10 times already. You aren't reasoning about anything.

Those are just claims. You aren't explaining anything. You have to substantiate claims to give them any validity.

What conclusion are you referring to?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

"I read that as saaying subjectivity is flawed, undependable, aand inferior to objectivity. That is simply a rejection of subjectivity."

- This is an illogical, untrue statement. Pointing out that objective information is often more reliable than subjective opinion is in no way a rejection of subjectivity. There is no "rejection" present.

Nonsense. Aside from "undependable", you also used "flawed" in relation to subjectivity in general. It is rejection, totally whack rejection.

To say it is "whack" is the most excellent thing to say about what you write. Opinions are great indeed.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Those are just claims. You aren't explaining anything. You have to substantiate claims to give them any validity.

What conclusion are you referring to?

The substantiation for the rules I explained is that they work without contradiction, and that they are in line with common discourse.

 

[Shad]

There is no lie, you dismiss opinions because they are not facts. You dismiss emotions because the existence of them is a matter of opinion.

Anyone is free to dismiss an opinion because it is an opinion.... If you want me to entertain your opinion provide justification. Since you refuse to use any model for justification, ie reason, you can not justify your opinion to anyone but yourself. Your argument is dead as you refuse to make anything more than empty statements. You seem to think everyone is entitled to their opinion but this is just lazying thinking and a comfort to those that can not justify their views to anyone outside themselves.

I do not dismiss emotions. This is a strawman of yours. You think anyone dismissing your argument dismisses ever subject used in your argument as well. This is not the case. Your would realize if you actually read my posts.

A strawman is a lie. I am pointing our your starwman argument thus your lies. It is not hard when you provide examples every post but avoiding any argument against your views.

 

[leibowde84]

Nonsense. Aside from "undependable", you also used "flawed" in relation to subjectivity in general. It is rejection, totally whack rejection.

To say it is "whack" is the most excellent thing to say about what you write. Opinions are great indeed.

I don't think you know what the word "rejection" means. Rejection would be claiming that subjective opinion was meaningless/useless. I did no such thing ... thus, I did not reject anything.

 

[leibowde84]

The substantiation for the rules I explained is that they work without contradiction, and that they are in line with common discourse.

That is not an explanation, it is merely another claim without substantiation. Please provide evidence for your assertion that "they are in line with common discourse" and "they work without contradiction".

 

[Willamena]

If I may...

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?

I think his point is that the value in opinion doesn't rest in discussing an objective reality, only the reality of subjectivity. When I call you a "poopy-head," it has nothing to do with describing the world accurately, and everything to do with me, how I feel and think. That's what makes it an opinion. To try to press that into use describing an objective world would be a (category error?). So each has equivalent value, just for different purposes.

 

[Shad]

If I may...

I think his point is that the value in opinion doesn't rest in discussing an objective reality, only the reality of subjectivity. When I call you a "poopy-head," it has nothing to do with describing the world accurately, and everything to do with me, how I feel and think. That's what makes it an opinion. To try to press that into use describing an objective world would be a (category error?). So each has equivalent value, just for different purposes.

How valuable is an opinion without justification? How do we assign value without evaluation? People may treat all opinions as equal but this is nonsensical as some opinions are flawed and/or false while other opinions are not. No one is obligated to accept anyone's opinion thus there is no objective value for an opinion. There is only subjective value of opinion, an opinion regarding the value of an opinion which is just circular reasoning.

If I were to say, "In my opinion women are inferior to men" would you accept my opinion as justified? Would you dismiss it due to your own experiences? Is it equal to the opposite opinion or an opinion of equality? Etc. It is not a category error as an opinion must be reasoned, a model, thus it can be evaluated. It does mean an opinion is a fact but it can provide justification and probability for the opinion as correct or incorrect. It is a basic principle for even entertaining and developing a good idea while discarding bad ideas.

 

[Willamena]

How valuable is an opinion without justification? How do we assign value without evaluation? People may treat all opinions as equal but this is nonsensical as some opinions are flawed and/or false while other opinions are not. No one is obligated to accept anyone's opinion thus there is no objective value for an opinion. There is only subjective value of opinion, an opinion regarding the value of an opinion which is just circular reasoning.

An opinion's justification is its genuineness, how much it validly represents how a person thinks or feels. If it's genuinely theirs, it's justified (i.e. "I may not agree with your opinion, but I support your right to have one.").

Opinions aren't objective, hence there can be no objective value to them. Their value lies elsewhere. To hold an opinion to the same standard as, for instance, a fact would be to treat it as something it's not. Nothing can hold to the standard of being something it's not (i.e. "each thing is the same with itself and different from another").

You're not obligated to accept anyone else's opinions: it's how they think and feel, not necessarily how you do.

If I were to say, "In my opinion women are inferior to men" would you accept my opinion as justified? Would you dismiss it due to your own experiences? Is it equal to the opposite opinion or an opinion of equality? Etc. It is not a category error as an opinion must be reasoned, a model, thus it can be evaluated. It does mean an opinion is a fact but it can provide justification and probability for the opinion as correct or incorrect. It is a basic principle for even entertaining and developing a good idea while discarding bad ideas.

If it seemed genuine, I would accept that that's what you think and rightly reply, "Well, that's your opinion. Mine differs." Dismissing it, on the other hand, would be to declare it meaningless, useless, ungenuine, or even declare it out of existence.