I see no value in atheism

[leibowde84]

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.

By this (your) logic, morality must be subjective and, as a result, objective morality could not exist. Right?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

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

There is no option if it cannot occur that the rock stays on top of the hill.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

By this (your) logic, morality must be subjective and, as a result, objective morality could not exist. Right?

Objective morality is incoherent, it has fundamental logical contradictions, equating fact with opinion and equating force with freedom.

 

[leibowde84]

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

Right, but that in no way means that the rock makes a choice. It would depend completely on outside forces like wind and gravity. No agency with rocks, I'm pretty sure.

 

[leibowde84]

Objective morality is incoherent, it has fundamental logical contradictions, equating fact with opinion and equating force with freedom.

Fair enough. Thanks for responding.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Right, but that in no way means that the rock makes a choice. It would depend completely on outside forces like wind and gravity. No agency with rocks, I'm pretty sure.

You are simply changing the example that the rock is forced to roll down the hill, and that it could not have stayed on top of it.

 

[leibowde84]

You are simply changing the example that the rock is forced to roll down the hill, and that it could not have stayed on top of it.

Why would you assume that a rock has agency if this is not explicitly stated?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Why would you assume that a rock has agency if this is not explicitly stated?

Because there are 2 options, either one may occur, so there is a decision. And it is a matter of opinion what makes any decision turn out the way it does, which means the answer can only be given by choosing the answer.

 

[leibowde84]

Because there are 2 options, either one may occur, so there is a decision. And it is a matter of opinion what makes any decision turn out the way it does, which means the answer can only be given by choosing the answer.

Are you saying that inanimate objects do have agency and can choose according to your definition?

 

[Willamena]

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.

The same applies to the agency that is us, though. Decision happens "unconsciously."

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Are you saying that inanimate objects do have agency and can choose according to your definition?

In all cases the spiritual domain decides over the material domain. Regardless if it is the weather, or the brain.

Whether inanimate objects are autonomous is another issue.

After I told you more than 10 times you still do not accurately reflect my position that the question what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does, is a matter of opinion, which means the answer to the question can only be reached by choosing the answer.

Now you still ask of me evidence of agency. You still require everything to be regarded as a matter of fact issue, you still reject subjectivity altogether.

 

[Nakosis]

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.

I guess that's the question, does Atheism necessarily lead to materialism. I say not necessarily, but yeah it happens.

You no longer trust anything that is not factually proven to avoid being persuaded by something dreamed up of created by the mind of men, like we assume this being the case for God.

I go beyond that and even question facts. I accept facts as temporarily truth. Facts can change. The only truth is what people individually accept as truth. If there exists an objective truth, we'll never know it.

Anyway I think one has to question materialism as much as anything else.

So I'm left to accept the reality of my experience. Being it is subjective, it's nothing to bet the farm on but it's real to me.

 

[Nakosis]

The same applies to the agency that is us, though. Decision happens "unconsciously."

I don't believe all decisions happen unconsciously. In fact (figure of speech) if they happen unconsciously, I wouldn't even call them a decision.

 

[Willamena]

I don't believe all decisions happen unconsciously. In fact (figure of speech) if they happen unconsciously, I wouldn't even call them a decision.

I believe they do. I believe we are not actually aware of the moment a decision is made, only the knowledge that it has been made.

Edit: To clarify, I believe that "awareness" means awareness of a world that is already a reality, already happened, already taken place.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I go beyond that and even question facts. I accept facts as temporarily truth. Facts can change. The only truth is what people individually accept as truth. If there exists an objective truth, we'll never know it.

As explained, the only way to validate both fact and opinion each in their own right, is to attribute a different set of rules for each. You can then verify that it works without contradictions in theory. Of course if you can tell them apart with the pressures in real life is a different issue.

 

[leibowde84]

In all cases the spiritual domain decides over the material domain. Regardless if it is the weather, or the brain.

Whether inanimate objects are autonomous is another issue.

After I told you more than 10 times you still do not accurately reflect my position that the question what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does, is a matter of opinion, which means the answer to the question can only be reached by choosing the answer.

Now you still ask of me evidence of agency. You still require everything to be regarded as a matter of fact issue, you still reject subjectivity altogether.

Evidence is not always objective. Subjective evidence exists, right? Why would you consider something as true in a debate without any supporting evidence? That seems ridiculous, doesn't it? You just expect people to take your word for things that seem outlandish to them. I have never once heard or read anything that suggests that inanimate objects make decisions or have agency. Thus, I think it completely reasonable to ask for evidence as to why you think this.

In regards to the example, a rock could roll down the hill, or it could stay put. That does not mean that the rock is actively doing anything. It's movement is the direct product of its environment.

Here is how the term "agency" is defined in the Miriam-Webster Dictionary. Maybe this will help you understand why your argument seems illogical to me, as "achieving an end" or "exerting power" is required. Both of these are impossible when referencing a rock.

Agency (philosophical concept) - From Merriam-Webster's Dictionary (Agency | Definition of agency by Merriam-Webster

(operation) the capacity, condition, or state of acting or of exerting power.

(instrumentality) a person or thing through which power is exerted or an end is achieved.

 

[leibowde84]

In all cases the spiritual domain decides over the material domain. Regardless if it is the weather, or the brain.

Whether inanimate objects are autonomous is another issue.

After I told you more than 10 times you still do not accurately reflect my position that the question what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does, is a matter of opinion, which means the answer to the question can only be reached by choosing the answer.

Now you still ask of me evidence of agency. You still require everything to be regarded as a matter of fact issue, you still reject subjectivity altogether.

And, you seem to be frustrated with the fact that I disagree with you in regards to how you define a choice or agency. You can explain it the same way over and over, but that does you no good. I am providing counter-arguments as to why your argument is flawed, and you respond by saying basically, "I already told you and I'm right, so I shouldn't have to provide any evidence to support my position".

 

[Nakosis]

I believe they do. I believe we are not actually aware of the moment a decision is made, only the knowledge that it has been made.

Edit: To clarify, I believe that "awareness" means awareness of a world that is already a reality, already happened, already taken place.

You've never mulled over a tough decision? Like what school or type of education to choose. Having to decide between which two important events to attend. When you're sick whether it is better to go to work or stay home. Maybe lots of possible options to choose to do for the day to decide among.

I'm not saying we don't run on auto-pilot most of the time, still are you saying you've never been consciously aware of making a decision your entire life?

 

[Nakosis]

As explained, the only way to validate both fact and opinion each in their own right, is to attribute a different set of rules for each. You can then verify that it works without contradictions in theory. Of course if you can tell them apart with the pressures in real life is a different issue.

Ok, so how do you go about validating opinion?
My opinion is what it is, it's valid to me. I assume your opinion is valid to you. I don't know if it is reasonable for me to validate your opinion since I'm not you.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

And, you seem to be frustrated with the fact that I disagree with you in regards to how you define a choice or agency. You can explain it the same way over and over, but that does you no good. I am providing counter-arguments as to why your argument is flawed, and you respond by saying basically, "I already told you and I'm right, so I shouldn't have to provide any evidence to support my position".

You said you agreed with it before, but then I already knew that was just saying whatever to be rid of it then
.
The point is that you do not accurately reflect my position.

You are just fighting tooth and nail to have what is good and evil be fact, to prop up your self confidence with the factual certitude. You have no argumentation, I have an argumentation.