I see no value in atheism

[Shad]

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

Not sure of the relevance of that...

Point being an experience although real to the person may never have happened. Thus to use this experience as justification would be a flaw regardless of how real the experience seems

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

You declared my set of experiences to be statistics of people as an objective view while declaring your singular experience to be subjective. Regardless of the number of experiences these are still subjective to the person in question. Sets of experience do form a basis for an opinion and changes of an opinion. Think of any food you once hated but now enjoy. The first experience would be the basis of disliking a food. However as a set of experiences this opinion changed. Likewise a set of experience can reinforce a opinion.

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.

An issue is many express a view then do not wish to hear any criticism of it

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

I understand your point. However given the OP of the thread this is probably not the best environment for expression of opinions

Sometimes they express them just because they have them.

Again probably not the best environment for it

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.

Which I attempt to do but are called evil for does so.

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

If the opinion was only this there would be no issues. However this opinion is a spring border for large ideas and forms a trap argument. One which I see often when one want to inject principles not argued for in the first argument

 

[leibowde84]

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.

Oh yeah ... sorry, I forgot. Mohammad knows a great deal more about me than I do.

And, Mohammad, it seems that you are being a bit dishonest, as you have failed to produce my comment where I make these claims after multiple requests.

 

[Shad]

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.

I talk about dismissing any opinions I disagree with. As in the opinion is worthless to me. You seem to have comprehension issues when it comes to dismissing an opinion such as "I like ice cream" and opinions such as "inject spiritual domain here". I can accept one without issues. However I take issues with premises involved with your "spiritual domain" which then becomes a spring board for your evolutionary rants.

Again you dodge my actual argument and stick with your strawman and blatant lying

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

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.

For example that you ask for substantion that this logic is in line with common discourse, after you had already said to agree with my explanations which contained examples of common discourse as with deconstructing the phrase "the painting is beautiful". How can you ask for substantion of what you already agree with? You ask for substantion because in your view it is unsubstantiated and you do not agree with it.

You are simply saying you agree with it out of political expediency. That is a tactic you pull all the time. You reject the procedure of reaching the conclusion about what the agency of a decision is, by choosing the conclusion.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I talk about dismissing any opinions I disagree with. As in the opinion is worthless to me.

It is contrasting worthlessness of opinions, with the worth of facts.

It is presenting opinions as an inferior form of a fact, while actually opinions are categorically distinct from facts.

 

[leibowde84]

For example that you ask for substantion that this logic is in line with common discourse, after you had already said to agree with my explanations which contained examples of common discourse as with deconstructing the phrase "the painting is beautiful". How can you ask for substantion of what you already agree with? You ask for substantion because in your view it is unsubstantiated and you do not agree with it.

You are simply saying you agree with it out of political expediency. That is a tactic you pull all the time. You reject the procedure of reaching the conclusion about what the agency of a decision is, by choosing the conclusion.

Nope ... wrong yet again. I am asking for evidence to back up the derrogatory, false claims you spewed at me. I understand the overall concept now, for the most part. You have been insulting me for weeks now, and have not provided any words of mine that would back up your outlandish claims about me.

 

[Shad]

It is contrasting worthlessness of opinions, with the worth of facts.

No it is attacking a premise which is injected into the argument which is unnecessary. An opinion basis on false justification has less value then one based on proper justification. Someone saying they think ice cream is the best food without having even tasted ice cream has an opinion of lower value then one making the same claim but has tasted ice cream. One has justification and one is an empty opinion devoid of the experience. Do you think an opinion from someone that never tasted ice cream is equal to an opinion from someone that has? Do you think it is valid?

It is presenting opinions as an inferior form of a fact, while actually opinions are categorically distinct from facts.

It depends on what the opinion is. If it is just ice cream being your favorite food no one will case. However you inject your "spiritual domain" into your argument for opinions thus I find that opinion less justified thus of little value. It could be true but your argument does not led to such a conclusion.

 

[Willamena]

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.

Information in the mind exists. Words exist. Saying such is a matter of fact, yes, not opinion, because talk of existence draws the ontological picture (the picture of the world, as opposed to me).

I like to think I made a clear distinction between idea and feeling, but maybe that's just me.

Evil is an idea, like genuineness, and up. To deny these things is simply to render words useless. I don't see any use to denying existents.

 

[Willamena]

Point being an experience although real to the person may never have happened. Thus to use this experience as justification would be a flaw regardless of how real the experience seems

This suggests that we are to measure the validity of an experience by the fact of it happening.


I like ice cream.


(I have no idea how to respond to the rest of your post, so I won't.)

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Information in the mind exists. Words exist. Saying such is a matter of fact, yes, not opinion, because talk of existence draws the ontological picture (the picture of the world, as opposed to me).

I like to think I made a clear distinction between idea and feeling, but maybe that's just me.

Evil is an idea, like genuineness, and up. To deny these things is simply to render words useless. I don't see any use to denying existents.

No, evil and goodness are spirit, they are what makes a decision turn out the way it does. The goodness of the man made the decision turn out left.

Why don't you simply apply creationist logic, distinguish between creator and creation, between what chooses and what is chosen?

 

[leibowde84]

This suggests that we are to measure the validity of an experience by the fact of it happening.


I like ice cream.


(I have no idea how to respond to the rest of your post, so I won't.)

But, you do realize that this opinion is based on a plethora of facts which have summed up to your feelings regarding ice-cream, right. This is easily seen by you not being able to turn back and honestly reverse your stance. Your feelings about ice cream are based on your history with ice-cream.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No it is attacking a premise which is injected into the argument which is unnecessary.

It is because you require everything to measured as fact, that you say the spirit is unneccessary. Love you can measure, in your twisted mind, so that is not unneccessary, but spirit you cannot measure, so that you call unneccessary. You require all to be measured as fact in principle, which leaves no room for any opinion whatsoever, including the opinion that I like icecream.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

But, you do realize that this opinion is based on a plethora of facts which have summed up to your feelings regarding ice-cream, right. This is easily seen by you not being able to turn back and honestly reverse your stance. Your feelings about ice cream are based on your history with ice-cream.

See now you deconstuct opinion to fact. And then you complain about the accusation that you reject subjectivity......

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Nope ... wrong yet again. I am asking for evidence to back up the derrogatory, false claims you spewed at me. I understand the overall concept now, for the most part. You have been insulting me for weeks now, and have not provided any words of mine that would back up your outlandish claims about me.

in post 1697 you said:
"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".

You ask for evidence after you had already said to "fully agree" with my explanation of how subjectivity and objectivity works, which explanation contained examples of common discourse, like with the painting is beautiful, and a book about the moon. You just talk whatever nonsense you can come up with to keep with your factual certitude about what is good and evil.

You reject subjectivity, with your "flawed", "undependable" subjectivity, and your superior "objective truth".

 

[Shad]

This suggests that we are to measure the validity of an experience by the fact of it happening.

Do you distinguish between an experience that happened with one that has not? Do you find a hallucination a valid experience for an actor or opinion?

 

[Shad]

Misreplied nevermind

 

[Willamena]

But, you do realize that this opinion is based on a plethora of facts which have summed up to your feelings regarding ice-cream, right. This is easily seen by you not being able to turn back and honestly reverse your stance. Your feelings about ice cream are based on your history with ice-cream.

Yes, it is based on a number of things, most of them facts. But the fact of experiencing eating ice cream, and the fact of having an opinion about ice cream, and the fact of a number of facts composing the opinion about ice cream--none of those validate the opinion, "I like ice cream." Liking ice cream validates the opinion. That genuineness.



Also, reduction doesn't make something more true.

 

[Willamena]

Do you distinguish between an experience that happened with one that has not? Do you find a hallucination a valid experience for an actor or opinion?

An experience that I haven't had isn't something I can distinguish, because to me it's effectively non-existent.

What do you mean by "actor?"

 

[Shad]

An experience that I haven't had isn't something I can distinguish, because to me it's effectively non-existent.

What do you mean by "actor?"

An agent which can act and/or express themselves.

However you failed to answer my question. Do you distinguish between experiences based on delusions and/or hallucinogens and experience which are not? Is a delusion justification for an opinion?

 

[Willamena]

An agent which can act and/or express themselves.

An opinion expresses the way we feel about something or what we think about something. An opinion born of a hallucination may be no less an opinion than one born of a fact, because the opinion isn't the hallucination or the fact.

It may be no less genuine.