I see no value in atheism

[ImmortalFlame]

....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".

But could you not "choose" good?

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.

But you can also hold a belief while still possessing doubt about it.

Why does one commit to belief? Because of faith.

That depends entirely on the belief. Not all beliefs require faith to believe. Faith is a particular way of reaching a belief, just as skepticism is a particular way of withholding a belief. Not all beliefs require a lack of doubt (even faith-based beliefs).

Pretty sure doubt is the best "opposite." But if you have "skepticism" as the opposite of faith, then you have doubt.

But skepticism is more specifically the withholding of a belief until it is sufficiently demonstrated to be true, while doubt is simply the acknowledgement of uncertainty. Again, you can believe something - even on faith - and still doubt it. You can believe a claim without necessarily believing that there is no possibility of it being wrong. Faith is about believing a claim in spite of an absence of evidence or a presence of evidence to the contrary, while skepticism is about withholding belief in a claim until there is evidence or as a result of of evidence to the contrary. They are much more direct opposites than doubt and faith are.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

But could you not "choose" good?

Of course, or some other option. The rule is only that the conclusion must be arrived at by choosing.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Of course, or some other option. The rule is only that the conclusion must be arrived at by choosing.

But would that conclusion be just as justified as choosing "bad"? For instance, is the "choice" to consider child murder bad just as objectively justified as the "choice" to consider child murder good?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

But would that conclusion be just as justified as choosing "bad"? For instance, is the "choice" to consider child murder bad just as objectively justified as the "choice" to consider child murder good?

The logic of subjectivity demands that the conclusion is chosen, which means that for every opinion there must be at least 2 alternative answers available, either of which answer is logically valid.

You are confusing logical validity, with moral righteousness. An answer can be logically valid, simply because it is chosen, and is in reference to agency, while still be judged completely immoral.

Every chosen answer about what the agency of a decision is may be judged immoral, or every chosen answer may be judged moral. This is very different from the logic of sorting out the best result. With sorting out the best result then people get the idea that they always can do good, by choosing the best option. Not so with the spiritual understanding of choosing. No matter what somebody chooses, the case may be that they are judged evil for it. For example when somebody is high on cocaine, then no matter what they choose in this condition, the choice may be judged evil.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The logic of subjectivity demands that the conclusion is chosen, which means that for every opinion there must be at least 2 alternative answers available, either of which answer is logically valid.

You are confusing logical validity, with moral righteousness. An answer can be logically valid, simply because it is chosen, and is in reference to agency, while still be judged completely immoral.

Every chosen answer about what the agency of a decision is may be judged immoral, or every chosen answer may be judged moral. This is very different from the logic of sorting out the best result. With sorting out the best result then people get the idea that they always can do good, by choosing the best option. Not so with the spiritual understanding of choosing. No matter what somebody chooses, the case may be that they are judged evil for it. For example when somebody is high on cocaine, then no matter what they choose in this condition, the choice may be judged evil.

But are you asserting that good and evil are objective or not? If I find child murder evil, is this "choice" just as justified as "choosing" to find child murder good? If it is a matter of choice, and both are logically valid, how do you distinguish bad from good?

 

[ArtieE]

You are yourself bad.

Stop stating that as if it's a fact when it's just your opinion. You are shooting yourself in the foot every time.

And the way to stop the likes of you, is to simply teach how choosing works at school, to some sophistication.

And the way to stop the likes of you who don't know the difference between right and wrong is to teach you the difference by force-feeding you holy scriptures telling you what's right and wrong.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

But are you asserting that good and evil are objective or not? If I find child murder evil, is this "choice" just as justified as "choosing" to find child murder good? If it is a matter of choice, and both are logically valid, how do you distinguish bad from good?

.....obviously you also cannot reason about this. You also are enslaved to original sin, just like an addiction. I certainly I already said more than 10 times that good and evil is a matter of opinion, so for you to ask again if it is fact, it means you are totally hooked on making good and evil into fact, because of the phony self confidence it provides to have factual certitude on what is good and evil.

I already said, the conclusion bad or good is arrived at by choosing. Expression of emotion with free will. This means there is no objective criteria for bad or good whatsoever. For a decision, one can judge it good, one can judge it evil, objectively it is still the exact selfsame decision with either judgement.

I like icecream, and I find murder disgusting. And if there is no emotional depth for some issue, then there is still civilization. One can just accept in one go all the judgements in the Quran as moral, or accept all the laws of a country as moral, even if one doesn't have much emotion with many of the judgements in the laws. One can also relate one opinion to another, support one opinion, with another opinion. etc. etc. etc. subjectivity is of course a very large issue.

Very practical, and beautiful, for accommodating subjectivity, is the concept of the soul. To have a reference for who somebody is as being the owner of all their decisions, throughout their life. To simply believe people have a soul, makes subjectivity much more efficient, and meaningful. Also useful is the concept of the heart choosing. Which refers to choosing with all emotions in a unified way. Spirit is the most generally applicable term, it can refer to the agency of any decision, regardless if it is the weather, or a human brain which is decided. Whenever there is a possibility in the future, which is made the present or not, then the word "spirit" may be used to refer to the agency of the decision. etc. etc. etc.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

.....obviously you also cannot reason about this. You also are enslaved to original sin, just like an addiction. I certainly I already said more than 10 times that good and evil is a matter of opinion, so for you to ask again if it is fact, it means you are totally hooked on making good and evil into fact, because of the phony self confidence it provides to have factual certitude on what is good and evil.

No, the reason I keep asking is because you don't give a straight answer. On the one hand, you assert that "either answer is logically valid", and on the other you assert that no matter what a person chooses their decision may still be "judged as evil". You seem confused as to whether or not good and evil are subjective matters of perception or concrete ideals that are judged to an objective standard. You don't appear to be making sense.

I already said, the conclusion bad or good is arrived at by choosing. Expression of emotion with free will. This means there is no objective criteria for bad or good whatsoever. For a decision, one can judge it good, one can judge it evil, objectively it is still the exact selfsame decision with either judgement.

So is the conclusion that child murder is bad just as justified as the conclusion that child murder is good?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No, the reason I keep asking is because you don't give a straight answer.

Is nonsense. I say it is bad. And then you say that I assert it as fact that it is bad. You simply read the assertion of fact into it. I explained at length that the answer must be chosen. Yet, in bizarre expression of your addiction, you keep on insisting that I assert it as fact.

Same as Artie, I'm quite sure that you become physically ill for even considering the procedure of choosing the answer to the question what the agency of some decision is, be it love, goodness, evil, courage, or whatever, and that this chosen answer, by expression of emotion with your free will, is then reality and truth according to you. You simply do not do subjectivity. What you do in stead is congratulating yourself all the time for doing what is best, based on the facts of good and evil.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Is nonsense. I say it is bad. And then you say that I assert it as fact that it is bad.

No I did not. I am asking you specific questions about statements you are making and trying to qualify what you mean. I've never accused you of asserting fact, just asked.

You simply read the assertion of fact into it. I explained at length that the answer must be chosen. Yet, in bizarre expression of your addiction, you keep on insisting that I assert it as fact.

I never have. I've asked you repeatedly to qualify your position. I have never once accused you of asserting good and evil as fact, just trying to understand what you see as the difference between asserting something as bad and asserting something as bad as fact.

Same as Artie, I'm quite sure that you become physically ill for even considering the procedure of choosing the answer to the question what the agency of some decision is, be it love, goodness, evil, courage, or whatever, and that this chosen answer, by expression of emotion with your free will, is then reality and truth according to you.You simply do not do subjectivity. What you do in stead is congratulating yourself all the time for doing what is best, based on the facts of good and evil.

I don't care for these baseless personal accusations of yours. They are a symptom of poor logic. I see you have also avoided the actual meat of my argument, and conveniently avoided answering my question. Is this because the answer troubles you, or are you just too scared of my posts to read past the first sentence?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I don't care for these baseless personal accusations of yours. They are a symptom of poor logic. I see you have also avoided the actual meat of my argument, and conveniently avoided answering my question. Is this because the answer troubles you, or are you just too scared of my posts to read past the first sentence?

It's not baseless. I have completely argued it all how it works emotionally in regards to making good and evil as fact.

There is no content to your postings, no reasoning, no "meat".

 

[Nakosis]

Which was just to make the point that opinion and fact are each valid in their own right.

People can share emotions, belong to a group and decide as one sharing the spirit. Like with the American spirit. Also marriage obviously.

You have the ability to experience life as subjectively as you choose. You can share it with those willing.

Facts are useful on the unwilling. If you can get them to accept the validity of your facts.

So for an atheist like me, unwilling to believe in God, there's nothing to offer. Nothing to coerce acceptance.

My individual spiritual experience doesn't require a God. There are other experiences though we may be able to share.

Choosing to believe in God or not is really such a small part of who people are. It's nothing with which to judge the entirety of a person by.

 

[leibowde84]

It's not baseless. I have completely argued it all how it works emotionally in regards to making good and evil as fact.

There is no content to your postings, no reasoning, no "meat".

I would have to say that you have that backwards. You make claims about subjectivity, opinion, agency, and fact with nothing more than logical formulations. You continually fail to produce actual evidence to support these opinions, and get extremely agitated when anyone asks you for it, spewing hateful insults and character judgments. You refuse to even participate in discussion.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Why are you so confident in your subjective opinions about contributors on this site? To say that judgments about a person's character based merely on comments in an online forum is childish, foolish and disrespectful is an understatement.

I just find it awful, truly. It continuously beggars my belief the depths to which people sink in regards to this issue. People just destroy, annihilate, subjectivity....just like that.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I would have to say that you have that backwards. You make claims about subjectivity, opinion, agency, and fact with nothing more than logical formulations. You continually fail to produce actual evidence to support these opinions, and get extremely agitated when anyone asks you for it, spewing hateful insults and character judgments. You refuse to even participate in discussion.

Is nonsense. Artie, and immortal flame, all they do is misrepresent me that I say as fact what is good and evil. That is their argument, all of it.

And what you do for in stance, is change that example of the rock, that it isn't true anymore that there are several possible results.

It's all nonsense, you all have no argumentation whatsoever. You all have no ready to go understanding of subjectivity, which is why you have to reference a dictionary for all the terms, because you have no practical understanding of it of your own.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It's not baseless. I have completely argued it all how it works emotionally in regards to making good and evil as fact.

When you assert things about me personally, it is baseless. Not to mention irrelevant to the discussion and merely used to avoid the questions I ask you.

There is no content to your postings, no reasoning, no "meat".

All you do is make assumptions and repeat yourself. You have still not answered my question. Could you stop running scared and answer my question, please?

Is nonsense. Artie, and immortal flame, all they do is misrepresent me that I say as fact what is good and evil.

I have never once misrepresented you. Please produce an instance of me misrepresenting you or you are proven liar.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

When you assert things about me personally, it is baseless. Not to mention irrelevant to the discussion and merely used to avoid the questions I ask you.


All you do is make assumptions and repeat yourself. You have still not answered my question. Could you stop running scared and answer my question, please?

Your continuous questioning if I regard good and evil as fact, is nonsense. I already explained I regarded it as a matter of opinion, and I explained how forming an opinion works, the rulles for forming an opinion. That you ask one time, is already too much, because the explanation of the scheme had already been provided. That you keep on asking, is just plain nonsense. Some kind of debating tactic, that you can now accuse me of being scared, for not answering your nonsense questions.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I have never once misrepresented you. Please produce an instance of me misrepresenting you or you are proven liar.

Oh what drama.

You drive argumentation towards drama, I drive argumentation towards sets of transparant rules for facts and opinion.

You've got nothing. No argumentation whatsoever.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Your continuous questioning if I regard good and evil as fact, is nonsense.

I've not asked that. I have asked you to clarify what the difference is, how you determine it, and how you define certain positions. I am fully aware of what your stated position is - I am not illiterate, you have stated it approximately 100 times in this thread alone. I am asking you to elaborate on and explain your position, nothing more. If you cannot do that, then I suggest you seek somewhere else to spout your diatribes than a forum that is intended for discussion and debate.

I already explained I regarded it as a matter of opinion, and I explained how forming an opinion works, the rulles for forming an opinion. That you ask one time, is already too much, because the explanation of the scheme had already been provided. That you keep on asking, is just plain nonsense. Some kind of debating tactic, that you can now accuse me of being scared, for not answering your nonsense questions.

Because that's the only explanation. You have repeatedly dodged my question. Why? What is so challenging about it? Why are you scared?

Oh what drama.

You drive argumentation towards drama, I drive argumentation towards sets of transparant rules for facts and opinion.

You've got nothing. No argumentation whatsoever.

You are the one who resorts to personal comments, evasion and lies in order to make a point. Clearly, it is you who has no argument. If you cannot answer a simple question, then you don't even have a position either. Your logic is transparently nonsensical.

 

[leibowde84]

I just find it awful, truly. It continuously beggars my belief the depths to which people sink in regards to this issue. People just destroy, annihilate, subjectivity....just like that.

No they dont. You merely make false assumptions about people's comments. You have to work on actually paying attention to what people say instead of making false correlations, judging some for the beliefs of others. Just like not all Muslims are the same, neither are atheists, Christians, Liberals, materialists, determinists, etc. Everyone is different, so it is foolish to judge one by the comments of others who share beliefs that may or may not be relevant.