I see no value in atheism

[Shad]

That doesn't matter. I can have a valid opinion about dream events, about imagined ice cream, and about Luke Skywalker.

Only if each premise is not a false premise. Thus to confuse a dream with a real event is to present a false premise. One would need to distinguish between the real and imagined. Thus I like dream ice cream is valid not ice cream without the dream parameter. Thus one is being specific within a context rather then generalized which can cause a communication error. It can still be valid but can still be incorrect due to the false premise. Hence why validity is useless without soundness and why an opinion is only an opinion as it lacks soundness. As one is not "liking" ice cream itself.


You are presenting half-assed logic, you stop at the point you want and ignore the rest as it is more convenient for the argument then actually using the systems of logic properly which will result in a proof that opinion is unsound without proper justification and premises.

 

[Willamena]

Only if each premise is not a false premise. Thus to confuse a dream with a real event is to present a false premise. One would need to distinguish between the real and imagined. Thus I like dream ice cream is valid not ice cream without the dream parameter. Thus one is being specific within a context rather then generalized which can cause a communication error. It can still be valid but can still be incorrect due to the false premise. Hence why validity is useless without soundness and why an opinion is only an opinion as it lacks soundness. As one is not "liking" ice cream itself.


You are presenting half-assed logic, you stop at the point you want and ignore the rest as it is more convenient for the argument then actually using the systems of logic properly which will result in a proof that opinion is unsound without proper justification and premises.

That doesn't matter. I can a valid opinion in my dream, because I am in my dream and my opinion is ultimately about me. Even in hallucination, I don't lack for myself.

 

[Shad]

That doesn't matter. I can a valid opinion in my dream, because I am in my dream and my opinion is ultimately about me. Even in hallucination, I don't lack for myself.

Any argument which uses a false premise is invalid. Hence why proper parameters in any premise must be used. Which you failed to provide in your examples. Thus your stated opinions are invalid until you rephrase the argument properly

Valid is not the end point of logic, it is soundness. So you can have a valid opinion all your want. It is meaningless for anyone else but you. This is called subjective logic in which the axiom of soundness is granted. However anyone can reject an axiom. Once one rejects this axiom the logic of these arguments fails

 

[Willamena]

Opinions aren't arguments.

Edit: You can allow the conflation of opinions with propositions, observations and arguments if you like, but I was talking only about opinions.

 

[Shad]

Mo has been presenting his opinion as an argument which is the basis for the discussion about opinion. He expressed his opinion as an argument. Likewise expressing "I like ice cream" is an argument. Any statement made in logic is an argument by definition. Which is then subject to analysis. Hence why any statement of "liking ice cream" based on the non-experience of ice cream itself, ie in a dream of rather than experience of, is a based on the false premise of the experience.

Hence the difference between:

I like ice cream (real experience of ice cream)
I like the "concept" of ice cream (dream experience of ice cream)

It is the proper use the language when communicating what one is actually talking about. Hence a poorly defined premise is a false premise thus is an error in reasoning and commutation. This leads to a point that a conclusion, the statement expressed as "I like ice cream" is false. They like something but it is not ice cream.

 

[ArtieE]

Which is because you define choosing in terms of sorting out the best option.

I don't define choosing that way, that is what the word "choosing" means! Just write "choosing definition" in Google. Stop making up your own definitions it's only confusing and misleading.

The self congratulation that whenever you make a decision you by definition did what is best is how you achieve self confidence.

Of course normal people try to make the best decisions and are happy when they have done so.

And that makes you cognitive dissonant to deal with subjectivity and freedom. The logical structure is simpler than the rules of tic tac toe, yet you draw a complete blank. And then you make meaningless references to authority to keep your scheme of self congratulation in tact.

Meaningless.

 

[WirePaladin]

I personally find atheist depressing. I feel it's important to have faith in something and how many believe that once you die, that's it, which I know is not true.

Really? And how do you know? What evidence do you have? Can/will you share it.

Make your case and a Nobel (at least) is yours. GO!

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I don't define choosing that way, that is what the word "choosing" means! Just write "choosing definition" in Google. Stop making up your own definitions it's only confusing and misleading.Of course normal people try to make the best decisions and are happy when they have done so.Meaningless.

Eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, making good and evil into fact, thus replacing and destroying opinion, and making emotions irrellevant. The decision defined as sorting out the best result, in stead of the spirit making a possible future the present or not, is the original sin.

They already knew bad people like you thousands of years ago, the wisdom of the ages. And you think you are modern and have a high moral, because you think you always do the best, while you are spiritually nothing.

 

[Willamena]

Mo has been presenting his opinion as an argument which is the basis for the discussion about opinion. He expressed his opinion as an argument. Likewise expressing "I like ice cream" is an argument. Any statement made in logic is an argument by definition. Which is then subject to analysis. Hence why any statement of "liking ice cream" based on the non-experience of ice cream itself, ie in a dream of rather than experience of, is a based on the false premise of the experience.

Hence the difference between:

I like ice cream (real experience of ice cream)
I like the "concept" of ice cream (dream experience of ice cream)

But an argument is not an opinion.

And introducing concepts is a whole other matter that has nothing to do with dreams or hallucinations.

It is the proper use the language when communicating what one is actually talking about.

What is?

Hence a poorly defined premise is a false premise thus is an error in reasoning and commutation. This leads to a point that a conclusion, the statement expressed as "I like ice cream" is false. They like something but it is not ice cream.

A premise isn't an opinion. A statement isn't an opinion. I think you've conflated every type of expression as an opinion, now.

That it's not ice cream doesn't detract from their liking ice cream.

 

[Shad]

But an argument is not an opinion.

And introducing concepts is a whole other matter that has nothing to do with dreams or hallucinations.

For an opinion to be valid it is using the rules of logic as validity is a principle of logic. Thus an opinion is a statement which is what arguments are comprised of. For an opinion to be valid it has a set of statements leading to a valid conclusion.

What is?

Identifying the difference between a dream experience of ice cream and an experience of ice cream itself. One would be reduced say DIC and the other RIC. So one could like DIC but this does not mean it is a statement about RIC.

A premise isn't an opinion. A statement isn't an opinion. I think you've conflated every type of expression as an opinion, now.

If an opinion is valid it must be based on premises leading to a conclusion, this is validity in logic. A premise is either true or false. Any opinion is assumed true otherwise it would not be an opinion. Thus people use it as a premise but never followup with soundness of the premise.

That it's not ice cream doesn't detract from their liking ice cream.

Yes it does as it is not factually about ice cream as the common person knows. It is ice cream that is only experienced in a dream. It is a false premise and a non-sequitur. It contains both formal and informal fallacies thus is not valid nor sound.

 

[Willamena]

My opinion about how I feel about ice cream or what I think about ice cream is a statement about me. Even in hallucination, there is still a me.

If an opinion is valid it must be based on premises leading to a conclusion, this is validity in logic.

And what of validity in the common vernacular outside of logic?

Opinion is often irrational, so to hold its contents to logic makes no sense?

 

[ArtieE]

Eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, making good and evil into fact, thus replacing and destroying opinion, and making emotions irrellevant. The decision defined as sorting out the best result, in stead of the spirit making a possible future the present or not, is the original sin.

They already knew bad people like you thousands of years ago, the wisdom of the ages. And you think you are modern and have a high moral, because you think you always do the best, while you are spiritually nothing.

But Mo, have you eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil since you say "bad people like me"? According to you there are no bad people, only some people who are of the opinion that other people are bad people. Are you "making good and evil into fact" by claiming that there are "bad people" or is it just your opinion that there are "bad people" Mo?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

But Mo, have you eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil since you say "bad people like me"? According to you there are no bad people, only some people who are of the opinion that other people are bad people. Are you "making good and evil into fact" by claiming that there are "bad people" or is it just your opinion that there are "bad people" Mo?

Of course, again, it is my opinion. You are a very bad person because very easily you could do otherwise. Yet you destroy subjectivity with a lot of arrogance, carelessness.

You have no argumentation whatsoever, no set of rules for opinion and fact. That should make you think again about what you are doing, in stead of just fighting like a pitbull for your preconceived notions.

 

[ArtieE]

Of course, again, it is my opinion. You are a very bad person

Am I actually "a very bad person" or is that just your opinion? You really should stop talking as if you are stating a fact when you're only stating your opinion.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Am I actually "a very bad person" or is that just your opinion? You really should stop talking as if you are stating a fact when you're only stating your opinion.

You interpret good and evil as fact.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You interpret good and evil as fact.

But you have said he is a very bad person. Is that a statement of fact, or an opinion?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

But you have said he is a very bad person. Is that a statement of fact, or an opinion?

....it's an opinion.....

It's about who he is as being the owner of his decisions, therefore the statement can only be arrived at by choosing it.

I express my emotions with free will, thus choosing "bad".

And the opinion reflects on me just as well as it does reflect on him. The statement is also about me as being the owner of my decisions, because I choose the statement "bad".

 

[Curious George]

Not quite. Skepticism is withholding belief until you have good reason to believe it (or, at least, that's one definition of skepticism). Like I said, it's not a perfect opposite, but it's more of an opposite than doubt is.

Glad to see the thread is going.

I am pretty sure you are confusing the definition of skepticism. Unless we are talking philosophical theory (which would not be a good opposite of faith), skepticism is doubt. Why does one withhold belief? Because of doubt. Why does one commit to belief? Because of faith. Pretty sure doubt is the best "opposite." But if you have "skepticism" as the opposite of faith, then you have doubt.

 

[ArtieE]

It's about who he is as being the owner of his decisions, therefore the statement can only be arrived at by choosing it.

I express my emotions with free will, thus choosing "bad".

And how can you choose "bad" if nothing is actually "bad"? What do you think would happen to society if we listened to you and didn't stop murderers and criminials because they weren't doing anything wrong just expressing their emotions with free will?

 

[leibowde84]

You are just changing the example that the rock is forced to roll down the hill, and that it couldn't have stayed put....... That is the way you argue, you just say anything whatsoever to keep on rejecting subjectivity so that you can prop up your self confidence with facts about good and evil. You only have an attitude to fight against subjectivity as support, the arguments you provide are nonsense.

I am not very familiar with the processes in rocks. Cristalizing in rocks may have some freedom, heat dissapition, whatever...

Maybe I missed it, but was there a change in what the term "rock" meant in the example? And, btw, you are speaking nonsense in that you claim that I have rejected subjectivity but have not provided any reasoning as to why. Rocks don't have subjectivity, but that was the extent of my comment.