I see no value in atheism

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

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.

When you go to Aruba, then you have the possibility of going to the beach. You have possibilities around what has already been chosen. But choosing works in an anticipatory way, in regards to the future.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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

Except algorithms don't "choose". For humans, choices are the conclusions of considerations.

When you go to Aruba, then you have the possibility of going to the beach. You have possibilities around what has already been chosen. But choosing works in an anticipatory way, in regards to the future.

And how DOES a person decide which choice to make?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Except algorithms don't "choose". For humans, choices are the conclusions of considerations.

It is just arguing that complex ways of choosing, is the fundamental meaning of choosing. Choosing most simply, most fundamentally, is to make an alternative future the present, or to make a possible future the present or not.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Atheism is by its nature negative.
It is negative, because its only reason to exist, is its denial of Theism.
Were there no belief in God, atheism would be redundant.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Atheism is by its nature negative.
It is negative, because its only reason to exist, is its denial of Theism.
Were there no belief in God, atheism would be redundant.

A negative "nature" doesn't mean it has a negative impact on society.

 

[leibowde84]

"Common discourse" is merely the common or informal communication of thoughts by words. How can you reasonably claim that "evolutionists despise the informal communication of thoughts by words? It just doesn't make sense logically, as all people, evolutionists and creationists alike, need and use common discourse constantly. Conversation doesn't even exist without it.

If you still do feel that evolutionists despise informal communication of thoughts by words, can you provide some kind of evidence to back this up? It seems like a pretty outlandish statement, so it would be wise to provide an example of where evolutionists claim this.

 

[leibowde84]

When you go to Aruba, then you have the possibility of going to the beach. You have possibilities around what has already been chosen. But choosing works in an anticipatory way, in regards to the future.

Yes. I agree. Never said otherwise.

 

[Willamena]

Atheism is by its nature negative.
It is negative, because its only reason to exist, is its denial of Theism.
Were there no belief in God, atheism would be redundant.

I disagree, atheism (a denial) is positive. I think a lot of the mistakes about what atheism is stem from not understanding negation, hence allowing for nonexistent things whose only "nature" is linguistic.

The world is positive, it is not negative. All the things the compose the world are positive--a posit made about the world. A negation is nothing more than a posit negated. There is this posit, and not this posit: two hands, the yes and the no hand, but holding only one item between them. There is no "no item" to be held in the no hand, just the item itself passed to the no hand. Denial is saying "no" to belief in god. Denial is an item that can be passed from hand to hand, but while you are denying, it resides in the yes hand.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It is just arguing that complex ways of choosing, is the fundamental meaning of choosing. Choosing most simply, most fundamentally, is to make an alternative future the present, or to make a possible future the present or not.

No, you're the one defining choosing in a complex way. By your definition, a rock makes a "choice" when the wind pushes it off the hill, because it creates an alternative future where the rock is now at the foot of the hill rather than at the top of it. If anything, your definition of choice is more mechanistic than my own.

 

[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 liking is what the delusion presents as ice cream but it can not be phrased in any accurate sense of ice cream

Let's pretend, for a moment, that I am not hallucinating. I tell you, "I like ice cream," but what I've been referring to as "ice cream" all my life is actually liquorice, as that's the only flavour of ice cream on my island. If I tasted liquorice wine or liquorice candy, I would say, "Mmm! Good ice cream."

What opinions are "reliable" in the sense that you want them to be? None.

But that's because they're not about you. They're only intent is for the person who has them.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No, you're the one defining choosing in a complex way. By your definition, a rock makes a "choice" when the wind pushes it off the hill, because it creates an alternative future where the rock is now at the foot of the hill rather than at the top of it. If anything, your definition of choice is more mechanistic than my own.

I said the future is made the present... it is not the present making the future. And you haven't defined what the alternative not chosen was.

Most likely, there aren't any alternatives in that scenario, and the rock is forced towards the foot of the hill.

But you say there is an alternative, and alternatives always come with at least 2, per definition. So then what is the alternative of what also might have occured?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I disagree, atheism (a denial) is positive. I think a lot of the mistakes about what atheism is stem from not understanding negation, hence allowing for nonexistent things whose only "nature" is linguistic.

The world is positive, it is not negative. All the things the compose the world are positive--a posit made about the world. A negation is nothing more than a posit negated. There is this posit, and not this posit: two hands, the yes and the no hand, but holding only one item between them. There is no "no item" to be held in the no hand, just the item itself passed to the no hand. Denial is saying "no" to belief in god. Denial is an item that can be passed from hand to hand, but while you are denying, it resides in the yes hand.

As I said, if there is no belied Denial is redundant.

A negative "nature" doesn't mean it has a negative impact on society.

never suggested it did

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I said the future is made the present... it is not the present making the future. And you haven't defined what the alternative not chosen was.

The alternative was staying on the hill. The future of the rock was either staying on the hill or rolling down it. By your definition, that makes it a choice.

Also, if you're "making the future the present", aren't you implying that there is a necessary future that is chosen? Therefore, aren't you arguing AGAINST free will?

Most likely, there aren't any alternatives in that scenario, and the rock is forced towards the foot of the hill.

But you say there is an alternative, and alternatives always come with at least 2, per definition. So then what is the alternative of what also might have occured?

The rock COULD stay on the hill. Your definition of choice says absolutely nothing about other potential options being considered, it simply says that a choice is "to make an alternative future the present, or to make a possible future the present or not". In this scenario, there are at least two possible futures - the rock remains on the hill, or the rock rolls down the hill. By your definition, the rock "makes a possible future present" by rolling down the hill. Therefore, the rock (or possibly the wind) made a choice.

 

[Shad]

M'thinks you protest too much.

Crazy people can have opinions too.

Yes they can, of course this do not mean I need to entertain any of their opinions nor care

Let's pretend, for a moment, that I am not hallucinating. I tell you, "I like ice cream," but what I've been referring to as "ice cream" all my life is actually liquorice, as that's the only flavour of ice cream on my island. If I tasted liquorice wine or liquorice candy, I would say, "Mmm! Good ice cream."

Only reliable in the sense that you like something you mislabeled. So the statement is incorrect. You like liquorice. Ice cream is not a flavour. The statement can be corrected and you can be taught what is ice cream and what is a favour. However this point is a failure in use of language. No different that saying "I like Tacos" when I am talking about burritos.

What opinions are "reliable" in the sense that you want them to be? None.

Reliable in the sense that the statement are not mislabeled as per the first part of your statement

But that's because they're not about you. They're only intent is for the person who has them.

Only if the opinion is presented as such. This is not the case within this thread.

 

[Shad]

You're special pleading.

No it is not as there is objective evidence that such illness are flawed. If someone experiences a whole set of illusions then this shows how reliable of experiences changes. Real experiences against one solely from a delusion. Special pleading is to say all experiences are always reliable except for "insert excuse here". That is special pleading, one parameter is contradicted by another.

Anyone can sit on the bus, except for Africans. This is special pleading as the parameter of "all" includes Africans then the next part contradicts it by making an exception to the rule

 

[Willamena]

As I said, if there is no belied Denial is redundant.

While atheism is the belief passed to the no hand, it is denial sitting on the yes hand.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

The alternative was staying on the hill. The future of the rock was either staying on the hill or rolling down it. By your definition, that makes it a choice.

Also, if you're "making the future the present", aren't you implying that there is a necessary future that is chosen? Therefore, aren't you arguing AGAINST free will?


The rock COULD stay on the hill. Your definition of choice says absolutely nothing about other potential options being considered, it simply says that a choice is "to make an alternative future the present, or to make a possible future the present or not". In this scenario, there are at least two possible futures - the rock remains on the hill, or the rock rolls down the hill. By your definition, the rock "makes a possible future present" by rolling down the hill. Therefore, the rock (or possibly the wind) made a choice.

If it is in fact true that in the event the rock could either stay on top of the hill, or roll down the hill, then I have no problem with calling that a decision.

Sure there is some inherent freedom in the way the wind turns out. And while the wind may not be autonomous, it is still decided somehow.

 

[Willamena]

No it is not as there is objective evidence that such illness are flawed. If someone experiences a whole set of illusions then this shows how reliable of experiences changes. Real experiences against one solely from a delusion. Special pleading is to say all experiences are always reliable except for "insert excuse here". That is special pleading, one parameter is contradicted by another.

Anyone can sit on the bus, except for Africans. This is special pleading as the parameter of "all" includes Africans then the next part contradicts it by making an exception to the rule

But that has nothing to do with opinions. Someone who bases their favourable opinion of ice cream on their past experiences of ice cream will like ice cream whether or not they are hallucinating it.

 

[Shad]

But that has nothing to do with opinions. Someone who bases their favourable opinion of ice cream on their past experiences of ice cream will like ice cream whether or not they are hallucinating it.

It has to do with the communication of the opinion and were incorrect labels. If one never tasted actual ice cream then it is an error to label a delusion of eating ice cream actual ice cream. Just as it is to mistake a flavour with a food. If one had an actual experience of eating ice cream there is not problem except if they mislabel the flavour as the food itself.

It would be like say X tastes like chicken, a flavour, thus it is chicken due to the taste alone. It's an opinion but the language use is incorrect thus the statement is incorrect. They like the flavour but the misapply terms.

 

[Shad]

If it is in fact true that in the event the rock could either stay on top of the hill, or roll down the hill, then I have no problem with calling that a decision.

Sure there is some inherent freedom in the way the wind turns out. And while the wind may not be autonomous, it is still decided somehow.

Non-sentient objects do not make choices as they have no faculties to do so.