I see no value in atheism

[Willamena]

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

It's reduction: you've reduced the movement of one to the movement of the other. Rock movement is wind movement; wind movement is air-pressure change. An ability to reduce doesn't make something more true--wind movement isn't more truly air-pressure changes.

It's long been a flaw of analysis.

 

[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.

If you want to participate in the discussion, you have to argue as to why you think that agency or decision making can extend to an inanimate object like a rock. We understand your definition of agency, but you can't just claim it to be true. You have to support your argument that it is more likely than not.

 

[leibowde84]

It's reduction: you've reduced the movement of one to the movement of the other. Rock movement is wind movement; wind movement is air-pressure change. An ability to reduce doesn't make something more true--wind movement isn't more truly air-pressure changes.

I agree. That doesn't say anything about a rock being able to make decisions, does it?

 

[Shad]

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

He has been making up his own terms the whole time from "common discourse" to "agency". He plays loose with his terms so he had a grey area to hide in.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

If you want to participate in the discussion, you have to argue as to why you think that agency or decision making can extend to an inanimate object like a rock. We understand your definition of agency, but you can't just claim it to be true. You have to support your argument that it is more likely than not.

It is quite obvious it extends when it is held as true that in the event the rock could stay put, or roll down the hill.

Which is why you change the example so that the rock is forced to roll down the hill, and then say agency is ridiculous.

 

[Willamena]

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.

As long as you've tasted fish, rice and cucumbers, you can hallucinate sushi, yes.

As for the wine, you misunderstood my example. It was a matter of the wine actually tasting like ice cream, not being imagined to.

 

[leibowde84]

It is quite obvious it extends when it is held as true that in the event the rock could stay put, or roll down the hill.

Which is why you change the example so that the rock is forced to roll down the hill, and then say agency is ridiculous.

Why do you equate "could move" with "has the ability to decide what happens". Rocks, by definition, cannot move on their own fruition. That was never part of the example.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I agree. That doesn't say anything about a rock being able to make decisions, does it?

....he doesn't agree, it is all perfidity.

 

[Shad]

As long as you've tasted fish, rice and cucumbers, you can hallucinate sushi, yes.

No, one can just hallucinate something they never directly experienced before. I have had dreams in which I have abilities I never had nor experienced before. I only know these concept via communication. Such as having super-power due to reading a comic-book. For one to even identify a hallucination based experience of ice cream they already know of ice cream as two words describing a type of food

 

[leibowde84]

....he doesn't agree, it is all perfidity.

I do agree, actually. But thanks for making yourself look conceited. Appreciate it.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Why do you equate "could move" with "has the ability to decide what happens". Rocks, by definition, cannot move on their own fruition. That was never part of the example.

It's not really part of the definition of rocks that they can't move on their own. And as said, autonomy is another issue.

The example was that in fact the rock could stay put or roll down the hill. Supposing then that the rock stays put, then that is a decision. And when there is a decision, you can ask the question what made the decision turn out the way it did? And the answer to that question can only be arrived at by choosing the answer.

 

[Willamena]

No one can just hallucinate something they never directly experienced before.

Hey! That's my point!

I have had dreams in which I have abilities I never had nor experienced before. I only know these concept via communication. Such as having super-power due to reading a comic-book. For one to even identify a hallucination based experience of ice cream they already know of ice cream as two words describing a type of food

Dreams are not hallucinations.

 

[Shad]

Hey! That's my point!

No actually there should have been a comma in there. Obviously you did not read the rest as it contradicts this one sentence. You found you quote to mine then ignored the rest. Besides I have corrected my mistake.

Dreams are not hallucinations.

Delusions, dreams and hallucinations are all experiences of events which are not factually happening in reality. You can merely change a dream to a hallucination. All are tricks of the mind either directly in the mind or by sensory organs. It is not the source but the events are not real

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

He has been making up his own terms the whole time from "common discourse" to "agency". He plays loose with his terms so he had a grey area to hide in.

I just posit a few rules, and the rules are in line with how common discourse works. There is only grey area in defining choosing as making an alternative future the present, or making a possible future the present or not. Which is because of not really caring about it, because either way subjectivity would be validated.

 

[Shad]

I just posit a few rules, and the rules are in line with how common discourse works. There is only grey area in defining choosing as making an alternative future the present, or making a possible future the present or not. Which is because of not really caring about it, because either way subjectivity would be validated.

It was about the terms you use not the rules. You use agency beyond the definition of agency. This your rules are subjective as you do not use the terms common use but one you make up as you go along. The grey area is the fact that you extend agency to a rock in another argument after you omit this part of your terms from your rules.

 

[Shad]

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

Shush you are "forcing" a conclusion.

/sarcasm

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

It was about the terms you use not the rules. You use agency beyond the definition of agency. This your rules are subjective as you do not use the terms common use but one you make up as you go along. The grey area is the fact that you extend agency to a rock in another argument after you omit this part of your terms from your rules.

Meaningless authoritarian huffing and puffing so you can continue rejecting subjectivity altogether.

 

[Shad]

Meaningless authoritarian huffing and puffing so you can continue rejecting subjectivity altogether.

Nope, words have definitions. If you use a word outside it's established definition it is your problem not mine. You think the proper use of a language is authoritarian but its not. It is how people communicate properly otherwise one can say blue is green, apples are horses, etc. Maybe take a few language courses to develop your communication skills better. Remember the "common" is your discourse? Common use of words also falls under this catagory. However you just contradict yourself when required thus "common" is actually "Mo's subjective discourse"

Never reject subjectivity, another strawman, another lie by you in order to cover up your mistakes.

 

[Nakosis]

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.

You are not aware of the need for a decision before? Or do you feel the actual decision goes to some dark secret place which is then sprung on your consciousness unawares.

The actual consideration of choices being just a story made up by your consciousness?

 

[Nakosis]

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.

I suppose I'm not necessarily arguing about any of this.

However you are making note of this difference yourself. I just see mostly that the "scientific" minded don't want to confuse opinion with fact either.

Yes in scientific process opinion is not a valid part of the process. Science can't work with opinion. However we don't live in a scientific laboratory.

If you want to prove something to someone else you don't use opinion. You just accept opinion is true for you. I find most people I discuss things with accept this, including atheists.