I see no value in atheism

[leibowde84]

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.

I said sometimes that subjective opinions were flawed and undependable. Do you disagree? What about hallucinations, people with schizophrenia, people with altzheimers, etc.? There are many cases where subjective experience is unreliable. Do you disagree?

 

[leibowde84]

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.

And, you avoided my question. Do you disagree that subjective opinions are based, at least partly, on objective realities like one's history with something?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I said sometimes that subjective opinions were flawed and undependable. Do you disagree? What about hallucinations, people with schizophrenia, people with altzheimers, etc.? There are many cases where subjective experience is unreliable. Do you disagree?

Sure relate accepting subjectivity to being insane and whatnot....as contrasted with the "objective truth" which is not related to insanity apparently. It is rejection of subjectivity, and nothing you might say could lead me to conclude otherwise.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

And, you avoided my question. Do you disagree that subjective opinions are based, at least partly, on objective realities like one's history with something?

You can accept that the answer to the question about what the agency of a decision is, can only be reached by choosing the answer, or you can take the high way.

 

[leibowde84]

Sure relate accepting subjectivity to being insane and whatnot....as contrasted with the "objective truth" which is not related to insanity apparently. It is rejection of subjectivity, and nothing you might say could lead me to conclude otherwise.

That I believe, due to your stubborness and one-sided outlook.

Yet again, you have failed to answer my question. Do you not think that the opinions we hold are based, at least in part, on objective truths like our knowledge of history, past good/bad experiences with something, whether people we love appreciate or like a certain thing, etc.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

That I believe, due to your stubborness and one-sided outlook.

Yet again, you have failed to answer my question. Do you not think that the opinions we hold are based, at least in part, on objective truths like our knowledge of history, past good/bad experiences with something, whether people we love appreciate or like a certain thing, etc.

You see, these people who have defined choosing as sorting out the best result cannot conceive of it that they are wrong, because when they choose, then by the definition of choosing that they use, they did the best.

You are wrong, both logically and ethically.

 

[leibowde84]

You can accept that the answer to the question about what the agency of a decision is, can only be reached by choosing the answer, or you can take the high way.

I never once said that a choice was not involved. That choice, whether we realize it or not, is based on underlying experiences and objective facts that shape the way we see the world. Do you disagree with this, specifically?

 

[leibowde84]

You see these people who have defined choosing as sorting out the best result cannot conceive of it that they are wrong, because when they choose, then by the definition of choosing that they use, they did the best.

You are wrong, both logically and ethically.

I do not think that "choosing" is merely "sorting out the best result". Where did you get that from? I never claimed this. I merely claimed that "choosing" is based on past experience and objective knowledge gained throughout life that, consciously or not, contribute to the way we see the world. Our subjective opinions are not seperated completely from objective reality.

Can you please answer my question (4th request now)?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I do not think that "choosing" is merely "sorting out the best result". Where did you get that from? I never claimed this. I merely claimed that "choosing" is based on past experience and objective knowledge gained throughout life that, consciously or not, contribute to the way we see the world. Our subjective opinions are not seperated completely from objective reality.

Can you please answer my question (4th request now)?

Again...you can take a holiday the way you talked about subjectivity as being flawed, undependable and related to insanity in contrast to the "objective truth". Take a holiday and chew on the simple procedure to reach the conclusion about what the agency of a decision is by choosing the conclusion. And a decision is to make an alternative future the present, or to make a possible future the present or not. Decisions are anticipatory towards the future.

 

[leibowde84]

Again...you can take a holiday the way you talked about subjectivity as being flawed, undependable and related to insanity in contrast to the "objective truth". Take a holiday and chew on the simple procedure to reach the conclusion about what the agency of a decision is by choosing the conclusion. And a decision is to make an alternative future the present, or to make a possible future the present or not. Decisions are anticipatory towards the future.

You sure do like putting words in people's mouths. I never said that subjecitivity was related to insanity, I merely pointed out that mental disorders are a clear indication of examples where subjective experience CAN BE flawed ... I would never say that subjective experience is bound to be or always is flawed. Further, of course a choice/decision is anticipatory towards the future ... I never said otherwise. In addition to this, however, a choice is also based on and telling of one's past. We base our choices on the knowledge/experiences we've gained throughout our lives. Do you disagree (now I've asked this 5 times, care to answer it finally)?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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

You keep using these such phrases over and over, and it occurs to me that your only reason for using them is when you don't have a response to the argument put in front of you.

You want subjectivity to mean acting in a forced way like a robot. That's not in line with common discourse.

No I don't. I have already explained that decisions are not "forced", and you continue to LIE about my position regardless of how clear I make it. Why do you persist in lying to me? Why do you feel you have to resort to dishonesty?

Very obviously you redefined all words associated to choosing to make them use a logic of being forced, including the word "choosing".

No, I used the actual definition of the words. Unlike you. You define words however you want to, with no regard for what the words actually mean in common discourse, or any understanding of the concepts they involve.

A sorting algorithm typically cannot turn out several different ways, the highest will always sort out as being the highest.

You also don't know how algorithms work. If you take account of different factors, you can get a different result.

 

[leibowde84]

You keep using these such phrases over and over, and it occurs to me that your only reason for using them is when you don't have a response to the argument put in front of you.


No I don't. I have already explained that decisions are not "forced", and you continue to LIE about my position regardless of how clear I make it. Why do you persist in lying to me? Why do you feel you have to resort to dishonesty?


No, I used the actual definition of the words. Unlike you. You define words however you want to, with no regard for what the words actually mean in common discourse, or any understanding of the concepts they involve.


You also don't know how algorithms work. If you take account of different factors, you can get a different result.

I think it is pretty clear when Mohammad doesn't have a counter-argument or has been proved wrong when he resorts to personal attacks on your character. Keep up the good fight!

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You also don't know how algorithms work. If you take account of different factors, you can get a different result.

Only if you sort by choosing can you get several different results with sorting.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I think it is pretty clear when Mohammad doesn't have a counter-argument or has been proved wrong when he resorts to personal attacks on your character. Keep up the good fight!

Saying that "I use the actual definition of decision" is authoritarian huffing and puffing.

 

[leibowde84]

Only if you sort by choosing can you get several different results with sorting.

Did Immortal Flame ever claim that he did not "sort by choosing"? I must have missed that.

 

[leibowde84]

Saying that "I use the actual definition of decision" is authoritarian huffing and puffing.

Isn't it beneficial to understand and agree upon the definitions of terms when participating in a debate? Doesn't seem like you can get anywhere without first agreeing on this.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Did Immortal Flame ever claim that he did not "sort by choosing"? I must have missed that.

No you and he argue on the basis that sorting, selection, is choosing.

You cannot define choosing with more choosing, so that means it is impossible to be sorting by choosing using the definition of choosing meaning sorting / selection.

 

[leibowde84]

No you and he argue on the basis that sorting, selection, is choosing.

You cannot define choosing with more choosing, so that means it is impossible to be sorting by choosing using the definition of choosing meaning sorting / selection.

A choice can be based on a variety of factors. There is "sorting" as you say, past experience, historical knowledge, chemical interactions, subjective desires, etc. Why on earth would it have to be one or the other. Obviously, choice is far more complicated than that.

 

[Willamena]

I said sometimes that subjective opinions were flawed and undependable. Do you disagree? What about hallucinations, people with schizophrenia, people with altzheimers, etc.? There are many cases where subjective experience is unreliable. Do you disagree?

You're special pleading.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Isn't it beneficial to understand and agree upon the definitions of terms when participating in a debate? Doesn't seem like you can get anywhere without first agreeing on this.

You argue any way you like, and I argue the way I like. And I already showed my way of defining is in line with common discourse, as with the examples of that the painting is beautiful, and the moon and the book about the moon. The response to that was the authority defines decision in some kind of nonsense way that I just had to accept. What I say works. And I've always had much respect for common discourse, unlike evolutionists who have always said to despise common discourse as a bunch of prejudices inferior to science.

You are arguing against the wisdom of the ages, a structured way of understanding people have used for thousands of years. You have no chance.