I see no value in atheism

[leibowde84]

Depends on whose reality is the "linguistic" reality, no?

(i.e. none)

Not linguistic reality, linguistic reliability.

 

[leibowde84]

You found another nonsense side-issue to make nonsense argument about, so that you can avoid my argumentation which plainly shows that you reject subjectivity.

1. That comment wasn't in reply to you, so I'm not sure how I could be avoiding your "argumentation".
2. You keep on saying this, but you haven't provided any reasoning to back up your claim that I "reject subjectivity". In fact, I have proved the opposite. You just refuse to listen.

I'll ask one more time. How do you support the claim that I, personally, reject subjectivity in its entirety? You have not provided any substantiation for your claim.

 

[leibowde84]

I don't make false assumptions when Artie says as fact that raping little girls to death is evil. He says it is fact, and you all run in support of each other, to avoid the procedure of reaching a conclusion by choosing it.

You haven't argued against his point, though. You merely argued against the morality of his view (which is irrelevant anyways). It is upon you to show why there is no objective morality. Spewing personal judgments only hurts your case.

 

[ArtieE]

I don't make false assumptions when Artie says as fact that raping little girls to death is evil. He says it is fact, and you all run in support of each other, to avoid the procedure of reaching a conclusion by choosing it.

So, just to clarify, if you came across somebody who was raping a little girl to death you wouldn't try to stop him because he's not doing anything wrong?

 

[Willamena]

Not linguistic reality, linguistic reliability.

Ah, my bad. If by linguistic reliability you mean that you want to understand everybody, and have them understand the world the same way you do, then good luck with that.

 

[leibowde84]

Ah, my bad. If by linguistic reliability you mean that you want to understand everybody, and have them understand the world the same way you do, then good luck with that.

Of course I don't expect that. That would be ridiculous. I am only speaking to debate forums and reliability in the meaning of commonly used terms. Without reliability of this kind, how can we have any chance of understanding each other in a forum such as this?

 

[Willamena]

Of course I don't expect that. That would be ridiculous. I am only speaking to debate forums and reliability in the meaning of commonly used terms. Without reliability of this kind, how can we have any chance of understanding each other in a forum such as this?

We've enough reliability because we've the social environment, so it's not an issue. Hence the cry for more reliability is the cry for a shift towards your (or one individual's) unique understanding.

 

[leibowde84]

We've enough reliability because we've the social environment, so it's not an issue. Hence the cry for more reliability is the cry for a shift towards your (or one individual's) unique understanding.

Why does having the social environment take care of this issue? I don't understand how this would eliminate or even reduce confusion.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

It is upon you to show why there is no objective morality.

You reject subjectivity.

 

[Willamena]

Why does having the social environment take care of this issue? I don't understand how this would eliminate or even reduce confusion.

It's not going to reduce confusion--that's what I'm saying, that slaving people to particular meanings for some words won't reduce confusion, because meanings aren't in the dictionary, they're in people's heads. The social grouping is self-regulating in terms of the meanings in its vernacular, and people will align their unique vocabularies to the social group's for the most part. Take "frubal," for instance, which is particular to these forums. You come in and it's just a word, then you learn it, either by asking or by rote, and the word that once was particular to the social grouping becomes a part of your vernacular too. We learn what words mean by diving into a language, not by reading the dictionary, because we learn by rote for the large part.

 

[leibowde84]

You reject subjectivity.

FYI, that is a claim, not an argument. A claim is pretty meaningless without any reasoning behind it. You've said this many times, but still have yet to provide any reasoning behind this erroneous claim. Care to step up?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

So, just to clarify, if you came across somebody who was raping a little girl to death you wouldn't try to stop him because he's not doing anything wrong?

Masterfull debate move again. Same mastery of debate like Leibowde's changing an example in the middle of argumentation.

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]

It's not going to reduce confusion--that's what I'm saying, that slaving people to particular meanings for some words won't reduce confusion, because meanings aren't in the dictionary, they're in people's heads. The social grouping is self-regulating in terms of the meanings in its vernacular, and people will align their unique vocabularies to the social group's for the most part. Take "frubal," for instance, which is particular to these forums. You come in and it's just a word, then you learn it, either by asking or by rote, and the word that once was particular to the social grouping becomes a part of your vernacular too. We learn what words mean by diving into a language, not by reading the dictionary, because we learn by rote for the large part.

This is irrelevant though. Your example proves my point. There has to be a meaning behind the word "frubal", or it wouldn't exist. And, that term has a very specific, agreed upon meaning in this forum. I am not saying that the dictionary is the end-all, be-all, it is just the easiest way to come to agreement in a debate forum.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree at this point though.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

FYI, that is a claim, not an argument. A claim is pretty meaningless without any reasoning behind it. You've said this many times, but still have yet to provide any reasoning behind this erroneous claim. Care to step up?

You say "it is on you to show there is no objective morality". It means you reject subjectivity.

 

[leibowde84]

Masterfull debate move again. Same mastery of debate like Leibowde's changing an example in the middle of argumentation.

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.

When you say "the rules for obtaining an opinion", do you think that reasoning has no purpose and is not involved? By reasoning, I mean the thought process and things that led you to make the choice you do.

 

[Willamena]

This is irrelevant though. Your example proves my point. There has to be a meaning behind the word "frubal", or it wouldn't exist.

The meaning that we give it, yes. I'm not denying, and haven't denied, that words have meaning, they do. They have the meaning that's evolved for them in usage.

And, that term has a very specific, agreed upon meaning in this forum. I am not saying that the dictionary is the end-all, be-all, it is just the easiest way to come to agreement in a debate forum.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree at this point though.

It's only ostensibly "agreed upon," no forum got together to decide it. Rather, it was born in and grew out of the social grouping.

 

[leibowde84]

You say "it is on you to show there is no objective morality". It means you reject subjectivity.

I think you are mistaken, but why do you think this? I fail to see the correlation, as I was speaking to the fact that you made the active claim that objective morality cannot exist, but you failed to provide your reasoning behind this claim. No one is going to take your word for it in a debate forum. You have to support your argument.

I was not in any way addressing objective morality or subjectivity in general, I was addressing your poor debating manners and disrespect toward your fellow contributors.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

This is irrelevant though. Your example proves my point. There has to be a meaning behind the word "frubal", or it wouldn't exist. And, that term has a very specific, agreed upon meaning in this forum. I am not saying that the dictionary is the end-all, be-all, it is just the easiest way to come to agreement in a debate forum.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree at this point though.

It is just authoritarian huffing and puffing when you demand the dictionary definition is correct, and it is incorrect to define fact in terms of model, and opinion in terms of agency of a decision.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I think you are mistaken, but why do you think this? I fail to see the correlation, as I was speaking to the fact that you made the active claim that objective morality cannot exist, but you failed to provide your reasoning behind this claim. No one is going to take your word for it in a debate forum. You have to support your argument.

I was not in any way addressing objective morality or subjectivity in general, I was addressing your poor debating manners and disrespect toward your fellow contributors.

You want supporting argument?

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]

The meaning that we give it, yes. I'm not denying, and haven't denied, that words have meaning, they do. They have the meaning that's evolved for them in usage.


It's only ostensibly "agreed upon," no forum got together to decide it. Rather, it was born in and grew out of the social grouping.

I'm not sure what you mean by "born in and grew out of the social grouping", but I'm sure it was just one person who had used it elsewhere, started using it here, and it started to catch on. To tell you the truth, I've only seen one person use it a lot on here. But, I feel like this is a misleading example anyways. My point is not to rare words that aren't commonly defined. I am talking about sociological, scientific, psychological, theological, etc. terms included in an argument.