I see no value in atheism

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

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.

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 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.

I assumed that you were limiting your definition to beings with agency, but you are not. Thus, I was being honest, as I was genuine in what I said, I merely did not realize how different your definition of "agency" was than how it is defined in "common discourse" and in dictionaries.

In actuality, in my last comment, I said that I disagreed with how you are defining the term "agency". I provided you with my definition, and you spew disrespect. Can you please answer my question from my previous comment without being disrespectful?

 

[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.

None of this says that people hold opinions and base decisions on nothing. He is asking what reasons lead you to the opinions you have and choices you make.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

It's movement is the direct product of its environment.

That is nonsensical. You are saying what is free is forced.

What exactly in the environment takes care of it, as the case may be, that the rock stays put in stead of rolling down the hill?

 

[Willamena]

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?

To say that I'm aware of having mulled is to say that mulling took place.

To put our "selves" into the picture of mulling is just a trick of language. "I mulled," is more a linguistic skill than one of mind (substitute any "subject verbed"). With it, by this knack of investing in words, we bring to life a "person" in a way special from the operations of the world that it's, now, been divorced from. But that's another story.

I've been aware of plenty of decisions, as I said. But I'm aware of them only after they are a reality.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I assumed that you were limiting your definition to beings with agency, but you are not. Thus, I was being honest, as I was genuine in what I said, I merely did not realize how different your definition of "agency" was than how it is defined in "common discourse" and in dictionaries.

In actuality, in my last comment, I said that I disagreed with how you are defining the term "agency". I provided you with my definition, and you spew disrespect. Can you please answer my question from my previous comment without being disrespectful?

You can just read what I wrote before. I already defined agency. Do you want me to quote it again?

 

[leibowde84]

That is nonsensical. You are saying what is free is forced.

What exactly in the environment takes care of it, as the case may be, that the rock stays put in stead of rolling down the hill?

The wind moving or not moving, a worm displacing dirt beneath the rock, a bug landing on the edge of the rock, rain, sleet, snow, etc. The list goes on. The rock does not make a choice, it is directed by what happens to it and around it.

And, don't put words in my mouth, please. We are talking about an inanimate object, not sentient beings.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

None of this says that people hold opinions and base decisions on nothing. He is asking what reasons lead you to the opinions you have and choices you make.

It is a validation of opinion by explaining the rules of how an opinion is formed, as contrasted with the rules for how a fact is obtained.

 

[leibowde84]

You can just read what I wrote before. I already defined agency. Do you want me to quote it again?

My question is why do you feel that you can just change the meaning of the word "agency" to better suit your argument? That seems a bit dishonest, and leads to mass confusion, which is evidenced in this thread.

 

[leibowde84]

It is a validation of opinion by explaining the rules of how an opinion is formed, as contrasted with the rules for how a fact is obtained.

Sure ... there are reasons (or "rules") that support and lead to opinions, and there are reasons (or "rules") that support facts. Both are forms of evidence; one side subjective, the other side objective. What's the problem?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

The wind moving or not moving, a worm displacing dirt beneath the rock, a bug landing on the edge of the rock, rain, sleet, snow, etc. The list goes on. The rock does not make a choice, it is directed by what happens to it and around it.

And, don't put words in my mouth, please. We are talking about an inanimate object, not sentient beings.

You have simply deferred the rock staying put, or rolling down the hill, to the wind moving or not moving. What exactly in the environment, as the case may be, makes the wind not move in stead of move?

 

[leibowde84]

You have simply deferred the rock staying put, or rolling down the hill, to the wind moving or not moving. What exactly in the environment, as the case may be, makes the wind not move in stead of move?

Wind is moving air produced by air-pressure differences. Still no agency or decision being made.

 

[Shad]

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

Your comment has nothing to do with what I said. You asserted non-sentient objects make choices but these do not. You made a false claim, nothing more.

 

[leibowde84]

Your comment has nothing to do with what I said. You asserted non-sentient objects make choices but these do not. You made a false claim, nothing more.

Exactly. He is, admittedly, making up his own definitions for terms.

 

[ArtieE]

It is a validation of opinion by explaining the rules of how an opinion is formed, as contrasted with the rules for how a fact is obtained.

This is how to form an opinion. How to Form an Opinion: 11 Steps (with Pictures) - wikiHow

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

My question is why do you feel that you can just change the meaning of the word "agency" to better suit your argument? That seems a bit dishonest, and leads to mass confusion, which is evidenced in this thread.

You said you agreed with it before...

It is just a word. We just require a word to signify what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does. And the word agency is already in use with that meaning. You offer no other word, because you just want to get rid of subjectivity altogether.

 

[Willamena]

None of this says that people hold opinions and base decisions on nothing. He is asking what reasons lead you to the opinions you have and choices you make.

After the fact, we can rationalize any reasons, and we're darned good at it.

 

[leibowde84]

You said you agreed with it before...

It is just a word. We just require a word to signify what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does. And the word agency is already in use with that meaning. You offer no other word, because you just want to get rid of subjectivity altogether.

You are describing something that doesn't exist. You claim that a rock is subjective and can make decisions, which is not true. So, there is no word for agency that extends to rocks because it is a ludicrous concept.

 

[Shad]

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

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

Yes they could along as they know of ice cream from a source of communication. Just as I know of sushi but have never tried it.

Just a few days ago you gave an example of one thinking wine tastes like ice cream. You have contradicted yourself by switching between opinion and observation on a whim to support your argument then when it is used against your view it is something different.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You are describing something that doesn't exist. You claim that a rock is subjective and can make decisions, which is not true. So, there is no word for agency that extends to rocks because it is a ludicrous concept.

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