I see no value in atheism

[Shad]

Are these opinion based on delusions valid?

 

[Willamena]

If they're genuine.

 

[Willamena]

Napoleon Boneparte in an asylum may equally like ice cream.

 

[Shad]

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.

No I require justification for an opinion which is expressed to me especially when the opinion demonizes a group due to flawed justification as per your rants. Another strawman, another lie in order to make a reply while dodging the specific point I brought up in one of my latest posts.

 

[Shad]

Napoleon Boneparte in an asylum may equally like ice cream.

If the experience of tasting ice cream is a delusion then the opinion that he likes ice cream is worthless due to lack of justification. The experience is a fiction thus the opinion is based on a fiction.

 

[Willamena]

Do you distinguish between experiences based on delusions and/or hallucinogens and experience which are not?

They are different things, yes.

Is a delusion justification for an opinion?

I listed earlier that the genuineness of what is opined is its justification.

 

[Willamena]

If the experience of tasting ice cream is a delusion then the opinion that he likes ice cream is worthless due to lack of justification. The experience is a fiction thus the opinion is based on a fiction.

The liking of it isn't hallucination.

 

[Shad]

The liking of it isn't hallucination.

The liking is based on a delusion thus the opinion is invalid as a premise is false as it is not an experience of tasting ice cream. The statement can be reformed to include a premise as a delusion or that liking is what the delusion presents as ice cream but it can not be phrased in any accurate sense of ice cream

 

[Willamena]

The liking is based on a delusion thus the opinion is invalid as a premise is false as it is not an experience of tasting ice cream. The statement can be reformed to include a premise as a delusion or that one the liking is what the delusion presents as ice cream but it can not be phrased in any accurate sense of liking as it is.

M'thinks you protest too much.

Crazy people can have opinions too.

 

[YmirGF]

Ideas exist.

Indeed they do, Patty, but that does not mean that they are accurate portrayals of reality.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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

No, I actually EXPLAIN why your logic makes no sense, mostly by explaining how you are misusing and mis-applying your terminology. You don't seem to have any understanding of the concepts you are trying to use.

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.

Actually, everything you just said has absolutely no relation whatsoever to anything I have said, ever. You're just making stuff up now and accusing me of saying it.

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.

So are you saying that there are no pre-existing factors that can influence whether or not a person can turn right or left? We cannot successfully predict what someone is going to choose to do based on things we observe or understand about them? If so, you are demonstrably wrong. No choice is ever made in a vacuum. Whether you go left or right isn't determined by random, shapeless, unknowable forces. It is determined by a myriad of factors in each individual case. You simply do not have an argument.

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.

You're talking nonsense. You're the one who makes baseless assertions and then personally insults anyone who explains why you are wrong. You obviously reject subjectivity, because, to you, nobody else's opinion is valid but your own. Anyone who doesn't agree with you must "reject subjectivity" or some other ridiculous, invented concept that you use to justify your nonsensical position. Your argument is plainly based on a poor understanding of the concepts of choice, freedom and subjectivity, and your position is trivial to refute. Your argument is done, try a new one.

 

[leibowde84]

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?

So, are you claiming that the opinions we hold are not based on

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

Subjectivity is still present, so I in no way disregard it or reject it. By the way, would you care to even attempt to provide a counterargument to my claim that our opinions of food and the like are based on our history with those things? It's not like we have opinions about things for no reason or completely randomly, is it?

 

[leibowde84]

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 are full of it. You reject subjectivity, with your "flawed", "undependable" subjectivity, and your superior "objective truth".

Wait ... your explanation of the difference between fact and opinion was, itself, objective. It was not an explanation of how YOU see the world, it was an objective explanation of the difference between opinion and fact and the value of both. That is what I agreed with. And, since the explanation was, itself, objective, evidence is necessary to substantiate it. Your claim would only make sense if I asked you for evidence of your subjective opinion, which would still be very possible to do.

For example, I love music. I was brought up being forced to play the cello, go to music theory school, and I finally ended up picking up a guitar and joining a band. All of these objective facts contributed to my subjective opinion of school? Would you disagree? Or, are you just going to spew unsubstantiated personal insults my way again?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No, I actually EXPLAIN why your logic makes no sense, mostly by explaining how you are misusing and mis-applying your terminology. You don't seem to have any understanding of the concepts you are trying to use.


Actually, everything you just said has absolutely no relation whatsoever to anything I have said, ever. You're just making stuff up now and accusing me of saying it.


So are you saying that there are no pre-existing factors that can influence whether or not a person can turn right or left? We cannot successfully predict what someone is going to choose to do based on things we observe or understand about them? If so, you are demonstrably wrong. No choice is ever made in a vacuum. Whether you go left or right isn't determined by random, shapeless, unknowable forces. It is determined by a myriad of factors in each individual case. You simply do not have an argument.


You're talking nonsense. You're the one who makes baseless assertions and then personally insults anyone who explains why you are wrong. You obviously reject subjectivity, because, to you, nobody else's opinion is valid but your own. Anyone who doesn't agree with you must "reject subjectivity" or some other ridiculous, invented concept that you use to justify your nonsensical position. Your argument is plainly based on a poor understanding of the concepts of choice, freedom and subjectivity, and your position is trivial to refute. Your argument is done, try a new one.

You explained nothing, you just did a lot of authoritarian huffing and puffing.

You want subjectivity to mean acting in a forced way like a robot. That's not in line with common discourse. Very obviously you redefined all words associated to choosing to make them use a logic of being forced, including the word "choosing". You make the word choosing use the logic of sorting out a result. A sorting algorithm typically cannot turn out several different ways, the highest will always sort out as being the highest.

 

[leibowde84]

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

It is completely reasonable to ask for evidence when you claim that I have said something I have not. You need to provide me the comment where I "reject subjecitivity" all together.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

What do you mean by your last claim?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Wait ... your explanation of the difference between fact and opinion was, itself, objective. It was not an explanation of how YOU see the world, it was an objective explanation of the difference between opinion and fact and the value of both. That is what I agreed with. And, since the explanation was, itself, objective, evidence is necessary to substantiate it. Your claim would only make sense if I asked you for evidence of your subjective opinion, which would still be very possible to do.

For example, I love music. I was brought up being forced to play the cello, go to music theory school, and I finally ended up picking up a guitar and joining a band. All of these objective facts contributed to my subjective opinion of school? Would you disagree? Or, are you just going to spew unsubstantiated personal insults my way again?

It would suit you that you would be silent for some weeks, after the way you talked about subjectivity as flawed and undependable, in respect to the "objective truth". You basically said liking icecream is flawed and undependable.

 

[leibowde84]

It would suit you that you would be silent for some weeks, after the way you talked about subjectivity as flawed and undependable, in respect to the "objective truth". You basically said liking icecream is flawed and undependable.

No, you are confused. I did not say that liking ice cream was unreliable or meaningless. Again, since you are merely putting words in my mouth, I would ask that you quote my comment where I said that liking ice cream was flawed.

Again, my point was merely that opinions are not removed from objective reality. They are mutually reliant on each other constantly. Every opinion that we have is based on factors such as upbringing, our environment, politics, religious beliefs, past experiences (bad and good), etc. How do you see this as saying that liking ice cream is flawed? It, in actuality, seems to show that I see subjectivity as a lot more real and interconnected in every aspect of our lives.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No, you are confused. I did not say that liking ice cream was unreliable or meaningless. Again, since you are merely putting words in my mouth, I would ask that you quote my comment where I said that liking ice cream was flawed.

Again, my point was merely that opinions are not removed from objective reality. They are mutually reliant on each other constantly. Every opinion that we have is based on factors such as upbringing, our environment, politics, religious beliefs, past experiences (bad and good), etc. How do you see this as saying that liking ice cream is flawed? It, in actuality, seems to show that I see subjectivity as a lot more real and interconnected in every aspect of our lives.

You were using these words "flawed" and "undependable" in relation to subjectivity in general, and then referred to "objective truth" which apparently does not have these faults according to you.

 

[leibowde84]

Napoleon Boneparte in an asylum may equally like ice cream.

But, his liking ice cream wouldn't be based on a dilusion, so how is that relevant?