I see no value in atheism

[Terrywoodenpic]

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

Wind has no choices to make. It moves from high to low pressure without fail.

 

[Willamena]

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.

If one never tasted actual ice cream, they could not hallucinate it.

Saying X tastes like chicken is not an opinion, just an observation.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

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

No faculties to calculate what the best option is, using the facts about good and evil to sort out the options.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Wind has no choices to make. It moves from high to low pressure without fail.

Parachuters jumping out of airplanes fall down without fail, yet people have freedom.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Parachuters jumping out of airplanes fall down without fail, yet people have freedom.

But not all parachutes open.
That would not be many peoples choice.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

There is no agency in this example though, is there? Who or what is deciding?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

There is no agency in this example though, is there? Who or what is deciding?

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.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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.

So you consider the rock rolling down a hill a "choice", by your definition? Even though the rock showed no autonomy?

 

[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.

Why did you dodge my question. You already posted this several times and it has nothing to do with my question. In the example with the rock, where is the agency? Who or what is making the decision? There is more than just options required. There must be agency in someone or something to make the choice.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

So you consider the rock rolling down a hill a "choice", by your definition? Even though the rock showed no autonomy?

You said that in the event the rock could stay on top of the hill.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Why did you dodge my question. You already posted this several times and it has nothing to do with my question. In the example with the rock, where is the agency? Who or what is making the decision? There is more than just options required. There must be agency in someone or something to make the choice.

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.

 

[Nakosis]

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.

This is a pretty broad brush to be painting atheist with. You maybe confusing atheist with materialist?

To the individual, opinion and subjectivity is very relevant. Facts are what you can prove to others beyond a reasonable doubt.

An atheist just lacks belief in a God concepts. Doesn't mean they can't value opinion or accept subjectivity. An atheist could be a materialist but that's not what makes them an atheist.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You said that in the event the rock could stay on top of the hill.

Yes, it COULD have stayed at the top of the hill, but not as a matter of agency - merely as a matter of possibility. There is at least a theoretical "dividing of futures" in which one future contains a rock that remained at the top of the hill, and the other one has a rock that rolled down it. The former future was "chosen" when the rock rolled down the hill. By the definition you gave earlier, this counts as a choice.

 

[Nakosis]

There is no agency in this example though, is there? Who or what is deciding?

Human beings make decisions right? So maybe best to keep our examples to that...

 

[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.

What is your deal? Why do you keep reposting an irrelevant past comment? My question is who or what is making the decision in the rock scenario? Who has the agency to make the choice? The rock?! The wind?!

 

[leibowde84]

Human beings make decisions right? So maybe best to keep our examples to that...

That is my point. A rock cannot choose. It is controlled by outside forces, so there is no agency by definition.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

This is a pretty broad brush to be painting atheist with. You maybe confusing atheist with materialist?

To the individual, opinion and subjectivity is very relevant. Facts are what you can prove to others beyond a reasonable doubt.

An atheist just lacks belief in a God concepts. Doesn't mean they can't value opinion or accept subjectivity. An atheist could be a materialist but that's not what makes them an atheist.

That's just the formal definition of atheist. Generally atheism starts out with contrasting common sense with religious rites, ridiculing religion. There is a lot of acceptance of subjectivity in common sense, so at this point there is no big problem with it. But when atheists start to systematically think things through they end up rejecting subjectivity altogether. They systematically get rid of anything for which there is no evidence, therefore they are left only with objectivity.

And anybody who surveys atheist writings will know this to be true. This is in essence not typically atheist, but typically human. People like to know as fact what is good and evil, but positing good and evil as fact will replace and destroy any opinion on what is good and evil, resulting in destruction of subjectivity altogether.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

What is your deal? Why do you keep reposting an irrelevant past comment? My question is who or what is making the decision in the rock scenario? Who has the agency to make the choice? The rock?! The wind?!

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.

 

[leibowde84]

You said that in the event the rock could stay on top of the hill.

It is an option, but the rock has no say in the matter, as it is certainly an inanimate object.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

That is my point. A rock cannot choose. It is controlled by outside forces, so there is no agency by definition.

In the example it was in fact true that the rock could stay on top of the hill or roll down it.