I see no value in atheism

[Shad]

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.").

Feelings can be misplaced. For example hatred of a race based only on the expierence with few or no individuals of said race. Thus this feeling can be show to be fallacious or outright wrong. Ideas can be wrong thus if an idea is wrong the opinion can be wrong.

If you disagree with an opinion then you do not by definition agree with the justification for the opinion, it's reasoning.

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").

Opinions can be evaluated, people will agree or disagree with opinions and do so all the time. Hence we can objectively evaluate a subjective opinion's justification. An opinion can be evaluated in the terms of probability. You make the same mistake as Mo in thinking objectivity always produces facts and facts alone. This is about justification of the opinion, the basic reasoning behind the opinion.

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

Exactly. However by merely dismissing Mo's opinion I am committing an evil act.

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.

If? How can you tell whether the opinion is genuine or not? I could tell a bunch of lies that seem genuine after all frauds do this all the time. Do you accept an opinion as genuine or do you evaluate it? If you have a different opinion then by defulat you disagree with the justification of the opinion you do not agree with.

I can dismiss an opinion due to lack of, flawed or false justification. This does not mean the opinion does not exist. Some opinions are useless. Some opinions are meaningless due to incoherence. You are conflating dismissal in the form of disagreement with dismissal of the opinion as an idea.

 

[Willamena]

Feelings can be misplaced. For example hatred of a race based only on the expierence with few or no individuals of said race. Thus this feeling can be show to be fallacious or outright wrong. Ideas can be wrong thus if an idea is wrong the opinion can be wrong.

If you disagree with an opinion then you do not by definition agree with the justification for the opinion, it's reasoning.

Whether or not misplaced, if they are genuine--if that's really what a person feels--they can be expressed in opinion.

Opinions can be evaluated, people will agree or disagree with opinions and do so all the time. Hence we can objectively evaluate a subjective opinion's justification. An opinion can be evaluated in the terms of probability. You make the same mistake as Mo in thinking objectivity always produces facts and facts alone. This is about justification of the opinion, the basic reasoning behind the opinion.

What we evaluate is called the idea. For instance, I reject that men are superior to women. "Men are superior to women" is the idea that can be evaluated; my acceptance or rejection is part of "what I think," my opinion.

That rejection can very much be about how I feel about being a woman inferior to men.

If? How can you tell whether the opinion is genuine or not? I could tell a bunch of lies that seem genuine after all frauds do this all the time. Do you accept an opinion as genuine or do you evaluate it? If you have a different opinion then by defulat you disagree with the justification of the opinion you do not agree with.

I can dismiss an opinion due to lack of, flawed or false justification. This does not mean the opinion does not exist. Some opinions are useless. Some opinions are meaningless due to incoherence. You are conflating dismissal in the form of disagreement with dismissal of the opinion as an idea.

How can I tell if something seems genuine? It's often there in the context: it can be in their voice and attitude; in the rigour of debate; it can be in samples and examples chosen; it can be in the strength of an argument, or the conviction of a belief.

I don't accept or reject opinions based on them being stated, I accept or reject them based on (as you said) my own experience; but they are (other people's) opinions regardless of whether I accept or reject them.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

Sure. I agree completely with this, but that is not what he accused me of. He claims that i dismiss subjectivity all together.

 

[Shad]

Whether or not misplaced, if they are genuine--if that's really what a person feels--they can be expressed in opinion.

If expressed but found to be invalid the "feelings" can not be a valid justification. Thus one can disagree on misplaced feelings. This does not mean the opinion does not exist but that it is unwarranted and can be dismissed for this reason.

What we evaluate is called the idea. For instance, I reject that men are superior to women. "Men are superior to women" is the idea that can be evaluated; my acceptance or rejection is part of "what I think," my opinion.

When one expresses an idea it can be evaluated. We are expressing opinions thus are opening opinions to evaluation. Hence justification thus we can assign a value to an opinion. We can assign a value of zero to an opinion we find no justification for. We can assign a higher value for an opinion that is well justification. Thus justification defines the value of an opinion

That rejection can very much be about how I feel about being a woman inferior to men.

Which is based on justification which can be evaluated.


[/quote]How can I tell if something seems genuine? It's often there in the context: it can be in their voice and attitude; in the rigour of debate; it can be in samples and examples chosen; it can be in the strength of an argument, or the conviction of a belief.[/quote]

By justification of the opinion and evaluation. Again we can assign value to an opinion we find justified and no value to an opinion that is only assertion.

I don't accept or reject opinions based on them being stated, I accept or reject them based on (as you said) my own experience; but they are (other people's) opinions regardless of whether I accept or reject them.

The question is not do others opinion exist but by what criteria do you value one opinion over another. Many refuse to evaluate an opinion, or allow their own to be evaluated, as a safety-net under the facade of "entitled to an opinion". Not every opinion is justified nor is everyone's opinion worth entertaining. Justification and evaluation is the only method to separate good opinions from bad opinions.

 

[Willamena]

If expressed but found to be invalid the "feelings" can not be a valid justification. Thus one can disagree on misplaced feelings. This does not mean the opinion does not exist but that it is unwarranted and can be dismissed for this reason.

Funny thing about that: no matter how much you treat opinions as facts, they will persist, at very least until you begin to treat them as opinions.

Until then, if you insist on dismissing them based on a factual view of the world, you're variously implicitly saying, "No, you can't feel that way," or "You're not allowed to think like that." And people will respond accordingly.

When one expresses an idea it can be evaluated. We are expressing opinions thus are opening opinions to evaluation. Hence justification thus we can assign a value to an opinion. We can assign a value of zero to an opinion we find no justification for. We can assign a higher value for an opinion that is well justification. Thus justification defines the value of an opinion

By justification of the opinion and evaluation. Again we can assign value to an opinion we find justified and no value to an opinion that is only assertion.

As I said earlier, nothing will ever hold up to the rigorous standard of being something it's not.

The question is not do others opinion exist but by what criteria do you value one opinion over another. Many refuse to evaluate an opinion, or allow their own to be evaluated, as a safety-net under the facade of "entitled to an opinion". Not every opinion is justified nor is everyone's opinion worth entertaining. Justification and evaluation is the only method to separate good opinions from bad opinions.

Sorry, I didn't notice the topic had changed.

 

[Shad]

Funny thing about that: no matter how much you treat opinions as facts, they will persist, at very least until you begin to treat them as opinions.

Never said opinion was a fact, strawman. If one expresses an opinion we can evaluate it. This does not necessarily produce a fact. It can produce a probability which is not a fact based conclusion. Just because we can use a model for evaluation does not change an opinion to fact. It just evaluation justification for the opinion.

Until then, if you insist on dismissing them based on a factual view of the world, you're variously implicitly saying, "No, you can't feel that way," or "You're not allowed to think like that." And people will respond accordingly.

I never said they could not have an opinion nor hold it, strawman. I was saying I can agree or dismiss an opinion based on evaluation as the opinion is already expressed from one to another. If one does not express their opinion there is nothing to evaluate. However this is not the case as people are expressing their opinion thus opening it to criticism.

As I said earlier, nothing will ever hold up to the rigorous standard of being something it's not.

So opinions can not be evaluated? You contradict yourself while producing another strawman.

Sorry, I didn't notice the topic had changed.

It never changed, this was within my first reply to you in other words. You just never read what I said or caught on late. Justification can be wrong thus an opinion can be invalid and unsound. The reasoning is flawed regardless of how strong one hold to their opinion. Criticism is a method of changing an opinion. One can internalize an opinion only so far as opinion do involve facts, probability, misinformation, etc. This points of a bad opinion with a good opinion. When expressed an opinion also becomes an expressed idea.

 

[Willamena]

Never said opinion was a fact, strawman. If one expresses an opinion we can evaluate it. This does not necessarily produce a fact. It can produce a probability which is not a fact based conclusion. Just because we can use a model for evaluation does not change an opinion to fact. It just evaluation justification for the opinion.

You did treat it that way. Your method of evaluation treats the opinion as a fact. Let's take your earlier example: "...hatred of a race based only on the expierence with few or no individuals of said race. Thus this feeling can be show to be fallacious or outright wrong. Ideas can be wrong thus if an idea is wrong the opinion can be wrong." What is the movement from 'the hatred that a the person is feeling towards a race' to 'the statistic of people she has been exposed to'? It's a movement from the subjective to the objective. Facts are objective, opinions are subjective; in order to conclude your evaluation of the feeling as "misplaced," you have held it up against facts. You compare apples to oranges as if they were oranges.

But they're not oranges. A person who genuinely hates a race based on even one example of that race is expressing a valid opinion. It's actually, actually, really, really how they feel about that whole race.

What you say by calling it "wrong" is that they're not allowed to feel that way.

I never said they could not have an opinion nor hold it, strawman. I was saying I can agree or dismiss an opinion based on evaluation as the opinion is already expressed from one to another. If one does not express their opinion there is nothing to evaluate. However this is not the case as people are expressing their opinion thus opening it to criticism.

But it's not about you. Their opinion is about them. Go ahead and agree or not, it's no skin off anyone's nose. You're entitled to an opinion, too.

So opinions can not be evaluated? You contradict yourself while producing another strawman.

I don't know where you're getting that idea from, but I'll refrain from childishly calling it a strawman.

It never changed, this was within my first reply to you in other words. You just never read what I said or caught on late. Justification can be wrong thus an opinion can be invalid and unsound. The reasoning is flawed regardless of how strong one hold to their opinion. Criticism is a method of changing an opinion. One can internalize an opinion only so far as opinion do involve facts, probability, misinformation, etc. This points of a bad opinion with a good opinion. When expressed an opinion also becomes an expressed idea.

A conclusion can be invalid or unsound.*

*Technically, it's the argument that is invalid or unsound.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

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,

Emotions, the spirit, is the justification for the opinion. I like icecream. This supposes that there is love in my heart for icecream. The existence of the love is a matter of opinion. The love is the justification.

That you can dismiss the opinion that I like icecream, it means you dismiss my emotions.

It is disgusting, totally whack, rejection of subjectivity again, the way you talk about opinions that you can dismiss them. This is obviously competing fact against opinion, just like all the other evolutionists.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

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".

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]

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.

Nonsense, you were talking about subjectivity in general, and then saying it is flawed and undependable is reasonably interpreted as tantamount to rejection of subjectivity altogether.

And then you begin to talk about "objective truth" which of course means the facts about what is good and evil. Facts which destroy opinions about what is good and evil, destroy the freedom of opinion in democracy, it is social darwinism.

This is made all the more clear by that you simply reject the explanation of subjectivity as I have explained it. You said you agreed with my explanation of subjectivity, which was of course just debating tactics not that you understood anything about it at all, as has been shown repeatedly.

You reject subjectivity, you are a slave to knowledge about good and evil with your "objective truth", and you will simply say whatever it takes to keep on propping up your self confidence with factual certainty about what is good and evil.

 

[Shad]

You did treat it that way. Your method of evaluation treats the opinion as a fact. Let's take your earlier example: "...hatred of a race based only on the expierence with few or no individuals of said race. Thus this feeling can be show to be fallacious or outright wrong. Ideas can be wrong thus if an idea is wrong the opinion can be wrong." What is the movement from 'the hatred that a the person is feeling towards a race' to 'the statistic of people she has been exposed to'? It's a movement from the subjective to the objective. Facts are objective, opinions are subjective; in order to conclude your evaluation of the feeling as "misplaced," you have held it up against facts. You compare apples to oranges as if they were oranges.

My experience with another person or people is categorizing subjective events not objective "experience" as if it was divorced from an agent. An experience is entirely viewed by the perception of the individual thus is subjective. Experience provide insight this can be the basis for opinions. However some experiences are false in the case of hallucinations or mental issues and/or blocks. Hence persecutory delusion found common in schizophrenia. They have this experience but it is entirely false as it is a delusion. Hence we are identify reality from delusions. The experience is false thus the opinion is based on a false justification.

But they're not oranges. A person who genuinely hates a race based on even one example of that race is expressing a valid opinion. It's actually, actually, really, really how they feel about that whole race.

So one experience is subjective but a set of experience is not subjective? This is incoherent and special pleading as you define objective and subjective by the amount of experiences one has...

What you say by calling it "wrong" is that they're not allowed to feel that way.

Wrong in the sense of justification fails. It is easily as pointing out one experience is not valid justification for judging a whole race. One can accept with reason as it provides justification while pointing out the use of fallacious reasoning. One can also reject this point but this only provide evidence that they are irrational.

But it's not about you. Their opinion is about them. Go ahead and agree or not, it's no skin off anyone's nose. You're entitled to an opinion, too.

If it was just about "them" then the opinions would not be expressed. By expressing an opinion people are either displaying agreement, disagreement or evaluation of their opinion as an expressed idea

I don't know where you're getting that idea from, but I'll refrain from childishly calling it a strawman.

It is your use of fact when I am talking about justification that is the strawman. So keeping with what I am talking about rather than your strawman. Can an opinion be justified? Can the justification be evaluated?

A conclusion can be invalid or unsound.*

*Technically, it's the argument that is invalid or unsound.

True, got too loose with my terms. The conclusion can be false

 

[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.

Apart from your rip on Atheists, which is logically implausible, I agree with these comments in full. I have never said otherwise. If you think I have, plese provide my comment where you think I did.

 

[YmirGF]

Nonsense, you were talking about subjectivity in general, and then saying it is flawed and undependable is reasonably interpreted as tantamount to rejection of subjectivity altogether.

And then you begin to talk about "objective truth" which of course means the facts about what is good and evil. Facts which destroy opinions about what is good and evil, destroy the freedom of opinion in democracy, it is social darwinism.

This is made all the more clear by that you simply reject the explanation of subjectivity as I have explained it. You said you agreed with my explanation of subjectivity, which was of course just debating tactics not that you understood anything about it at all, as has been shown repeatedly.

You reject subjectivity, you are a slave to knowledge about good and evil with your "objective truth", and you will simply say whatever it takes to keep on propping up your self confidence with factual certainty about what is good and evil.

Wait, what? Evil exists? Seriously?

 

[Willamena]

Wait, what? Evil exists? Seriously?

Ideas exist.

 

[Shad]

Emotions, the spirit, is the justification for the opinion. I like icecream. This supposes that there is love in my heart for icecream. The existence of the love is a matter of opinion. The love is the justification.

That you can dismiss the opinion that I like icecream, it means you dismiss my emotions.

Strawman. I never said I dismissed the argument you like ice cream. I rejected the opinion that the spirit is required. I need no more than accept the idea of agency which requires no spirit nor injection of it you slide into your arguments.

It is disgusting, totally whack, rejection of subjectivity again, the way you talk about opinions that you can dismiss them. This is obviously competing fact against opinion, just like all the other evolutionists.

It is amazing the amount of strawman arguments you provide all while avoiding the specific spiritual justification disagreements I have posted.

 

[leibowde84]

Ideas exist.

They do indeed.

 

[Willamena]

My experience with another person or people is categorizing subjective events not objective "experience" as if it was divorced from an agent. An experience is entirely viewed by the perception of the individual thus is subjective. Experience provide insight this can be the basis for opinions. However some experiences are false in the case of hallucinations or mental issues and/or blocks. Hence persecutory delusion found common in schizophrenia. They have this experience but it is entirely false as it is a delusion. Hence we are identify reality from delusions. The experience is false thus the opinion is based on a false justification.

Opinions can certainly arise from delusions, just as they arise from facts.

Not sure of the relevance of that...

So one experience is subjective but a set of experience is not subjective? This is incoherent and special pleading as you define objective and subjective by the amount of experiences one has...

I don't see how that follows what I said. I wasn't talking about sets of experiences...?

It is easily as pointing out one experience is not valid justification for judging a whole race.

Sure it is. Especially if it's all there is to judge with.

Judgments will happen whether we like it or not, it's not like we have a choice.

If it was just about "them" then the opinions would not be expressed. By expressing an opinion people are either displaying agreement, disagreement or evaluation of their opinion as an expressed idea

People do express opinions for other reasons than to have them debated.

Sometimes they express them just because they have them.

Can an opinion be justified? Can the justification be evaluated?

Everything (in our wandering) has a reason for being. It should be judged on its own terms, though, and not as if it were the idea or fact that it's about. The opinion, being subjective, is ultimately dancing about the idea--and it's the dance that it's really about.

If someone said they liked ice cream, I don't know why you'd want to evaluate their dance.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Ideas exist.

That is the weakness of your position. In the end ideas seem to be information in the mind, words, the existence of which is just a matter of fact exactly the same as the existence of physical things like the moon is fact. You have evil refer to a factual thing, the idea, which makes evil into fact, not opinion. You mix idea with feeling, but as far as I can tell, idea belongs to matter, and feeling belongs to spirit. The question to determine whether idea is material or spiritual, is, are ideas chosen, or do ideas choose? It seems certain that ideas are chosen. What is chosen is fact and material. Just as well it seems certain, feelings are referred to as agency of a decision, in common discourse, which means they are spiritual.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Strawman. I never said I dismissed the argument you like ice cream. I rejected the opinion that the spirit is required. I need no more than accept the idea of agency which requires no spirit nor injection of it you slide into your arguments.

It is amazing the amount of strawman arguments you provide all while avoiding the specific spiritual justification disagreements I have posted.

You talk about dismissing opinions. I did not put those words into your mouth, you came up with that.

And what you say now is all just tactics. You regard the existence of love as fact, it is an electrochemical information brainprocess whatever, yet you regard the statement that I like icecream, which is based on the love, as opinion. You derive opinion from fact. You compete fact against opinion, that is why you talk about dismissing opinion, obviously.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Sure. I agree completely with this,

Don't believe it. He is just saying whatever as part of his tactics. The only thing he agrees with is his own idea of "obective truth", wich means facts about what is good and evil.