Present arguments for atheism

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I see that lame insults are your recourse when the goin' gets tough. Come on man! Are you truly incapable of discussion?

You are just another atheist rejecting subjectivity, who then posts complete garbage in stead of argumentation.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

And, btw, as I've said time and time again, any judgment is ALWAYS subjective.

You've got not logic attached to the word subjective, and you reject the logic of choosing about what it is that chooses. Here you are repeating your practise of sticking words together, here you emphatically stick the word subjective to the word judgement, but you present no logic with the words.

The logic of subjectivity you've now got is public guesses about private facts. Honesty is a factual issue, but only the person being honest / dishonest can know the fact of it, and anybody else is left guessing. How that guessing works is anybody's guess, you have not explained it.

And apparently you categorized good and evil as apart from honesty and the rest, which then means you've got another definition of subjectivity in regards to good and evil.

The existence of God you have as what is not fact now, but might later be known as fact. Maybe that's another definition of subjectivity there, or maybe it belongs togehter with honesty, who knows.

And if beauty belongs to the same category as honesty, as also private facts, who really knows, certainly not you.

Very obviously you are just fantasizing while you write. Come on, it's nothing. You need to shut up, stop fantasizing, and follow common discourse. At least try to accurately reflect common discourse in stead of fantasizing stuff yourself. Try to accurately reflect how statements like "the painting is beautiful" are arrived at, in common discourse. Or at least use common discourse as a point of reference, and then explain your position by indicating where your position is different from common discourse.

And everybody knows that the answer is that agency of a decision is a subjective issue, meaning that the answer about what the agency is, is reached by choosing the answer. So you know, that is the right answer like 1+1=2, you deny it, so there is no hope whatsoever for you being right about anything here. You've got no chance, your only recourse is to divert discussion into total nonsense, so that is what you end up doing.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Opinions are arrived at by choosing. But, we aren't talking about our opinion of whether someone was honest. We are discussing, when it is known that someone says something they know to be untrue, they are being dishonest, by definition. There is no reason to "choose" as, in my hypothetical, we know that A is telling a lie.

And in light of the fact that most scientists define choosing in terms of it being forced, I then have to ask, are you talking about choosing as in making an alternative future the present, or are you talking about choosing as like a chesscomputer sorting out a move by calculation in a completely forced way?

As far as I know, you have argued that it can never be publicly known as fact that someone is honest or dishonest, that it can only be privately known. We can only know A is telling a lie, if we are A, by that logic.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

it is both the person's opinion and it is fact that the person thinks the painting is beautiful. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, though, so it is a subjective term.

That is just saying it is a fact that the opinion exists, is it not? It is saying we can see the words lying, beauty, honesty, love and such?

 

[leibowde84]

Thinking it is beatiful, would that involve having the word beautiful in mind? The existence of the word beautiful is a fact, but that is not what you were arguing.

Again, whether or not I think a painting is beautiful is an objective fact. Does Leibow think the painting is beautiful? Yes.

But, my opinion of any paintings "beauty" or lack thereof is subjective opinion. As I've said repeatedly, any judgment is subjective. But, once an opinion is known to others, it becomes objective.

 

[leibowde84]

You are just fantasizing how it works while you write about it. You've got no working conceptual scheme. You have some requests for a conceptual scheme in which being honest is fact and opinion, you cannot make it work however. Your idea about private facts has nothing to do with how the word fact is used in science for example. That scientific word fact has a completely different definition.

Please explain this better. I have no idea what you are saying here.

 

[leibowde84]

You said that whether someone is honest or not is an objective issue. I disagree. One can be honest in metaphor.

If they are honest in metaphor they are honest.

 

[leibowde84]

You've got not logic attached to the word subjective, and you reject the logic of choosing about what it is that chooses. Here you are repeating your practise of sticking words together, here you emphatically stick the word subjective to the word judgement, but you present no logic with the words.

The logic of subjectivity you've now got is public guesses about private facts. Honesty is a factual issue, but only the person being honest / dishonest can know the fact of it, and anybody else is left guessing. How that guessing works is anybody's guess, you have not explained it.

And apparently you categorized good and evil as apart from honesty and the rest, which then means you've got another definition of subjectivity in regards to good and evil.

The existence of God you have as what is not fact now, but might later be known as fact. Maybe that's another definition of subjectivity there, or maybe it belongs togehter with honesty, who knows.

And if beauty belongs to the same category as honesty, as also private facts, who really knows, certainly not you.

Very obviously you are just fantasizing while you write. Come on, it's nothing. You need to shut up, stop fantasizing, and follow common discourse. At least try to accurately reflect common discourse in stead of fantasizing stuff yourself. Try to accurately reflect how statements like "the painting is beautiful" are arrived at, in common discourse. Or at least use common discourse as a point of reference, and then explain your position by indicating where your position is different from common discourse.

And everybody knows that the answer is that agency of a decision is a subjective issue, meaning that the answer about what the agency is, is reached by choosing the answer. So you know, that is the right answer like 1+1=2, you deny it, so there is no hope whatsoever for you being right about anything here. You've got no chance, your only recourse is to divert discussion into total nonsense, so that is what you end up doing.

As I explained, the judgment (or "guessing") is a subjective process where we use known information about the person and their statement to "judge" whether or not they were telling the truth. But, the person speaking knows whether they were honest or not.

 

[leibowde84]

And in light of the fact that most scientists define choosing in terms of it being forced, I then have to ask, are you talking about choosing as in making an alternative future the present, or are you talking about choosing as like a chesscomputer sorting out a move by calculation in a completely forced way?

As far as I know, you have argued that it can never be publicly known as fact that someone is honest or dishonest, that it can only be privately known. We can only know A is telling a lie, if we are A, by that logic.

I am not a scientist, so I'm not sure how that is relevant. But, I don't think the choosing is forced. We consciously consider the information we have and make a decision as to how to judge.

 

[leibowde84]

That is just saying it is a fact that the opinion exists, is it not? It is saying we can see the words lying, beauty, honesty, love and such?

Yes, I am saying that the opinion exists objectively. I've been very clear that is the only point that is objective. The judgment itself is subjective ... always.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Again, whether or not I think a painting is beautiful is an objective fact. Does Leibow think the painting is beautiful? Yes.

But, my opinion of any paintings "beauty" or lack thereof is subjective opinion. As I've said repeatedly, any judgment is subjective. But, once an opinion is known to others, it becomes objective.

Huh... but prior you said that only the person experiencing the beauty can know the beauty as fact, and that others only can have an opinion as to whether this person really experiences beauty. It's a big mess.

You are also non-resonsive to the question posed. Isn't the existence of the word beautiful as used by someone, part of what you are denoting as the objective fact of beauty?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Yes, I am saying that the opinion exists objectively. I've been very clear that is the only point that is objective. The judgment itself is subjective ... always.

That is very lame and entirely deceptive. It is deceptive to say you can know someone being honest is fact, and then after questioning it turns out, that this fact of being honest can possibly refer to seeing the word "honest".

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

As I explained, the judgment (or "guessing") is a subjective process where we use known information about the person and their statement to "judge" whether or not they were telling the truth. But, the person speaking knows whether they were honest or not.

You explain subjectivity by it being subjective, that is circular reasoning. You have to put the word subjectivity on one side, then an "=" sign, and then not put the word subjective on the other side of =.

And here you say the person speaking knows as fact, while just a few posts previous you say that when it becomes publicly known, then it becomes a fact. Big mess.

Leibowde:
1 "the person speaking knows whether they were honest or not."
2 "once an opinion is known to others, it becomes objective"

1 implies fact, 2 implies fact.

So you have everything as fact, and you equate opinion with fact, it doesn't add up. It's not a working conceptual scheme.

We all know that the correct answer is that the agency of a decision is the subjective issue, which means one can only reach the conclusion about what the agency of a decision by choosing the answer. That works perfectly, it has no contradictions, consistent with common discourse, traditional religion, just wonderful.

 

[leibowde84]

Huh... but prior you said that only the person experiencing the beauty can know the beauty as fact, and that others only can have an opinion as to whether this person really experiences beauty. It's a big mess.

You are also non-resonsive to the question posed. Isn't the existence of the word beautiful as used by someone, part of what you are denoting as the objective fact of beauty?

I agree that the word "beautiful" exists objectively. But, what the word means can change from person to person and is, thus, largely subjective. And, I never said that anyone "knows beauty as fact". The only objective fact would be whether or not someone thinks something is beautiful. Why that person thinks the thing is beautiful is subjective.

 

[McBell]

You are just another atheist rejecting subjectivity, who then posts complete garbage in stead of argumentation.

You do.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I agree that the word "beautiful" exists objectively. But, what the word means can change from person to person and is, thus, largely subjective. And, I never said that anyone "knows beauty as fact". The only objective fact would be whether or not someone thinks something is beautiful. Why that person thinks the thing is beautiful is subjective.

So you are saying honesty and beauty have different rules? Or they have the same rules?

 

[leibowde84]

You explain subjectivity by it being subjective, that is circular reasoning. You have to put the word subjectivity on one side, then an "=" sign, and then not put the word subjective on the other side of =.

And here you say the person speaking knows as fact, while just a few posts previous you say that when it becomes publicly known, then it becomes a fact. Big mess.

Leibowde:
1 "the person speaking knows whether they were honest or not."
2 "once an opinion is known to others, it becomes objective"

1 implies fact, 2 implies fact.

So you have everything as fact, and you equate opinion with fact, it doesn't add up. It's not a working conceptual scheme.

We all know that the correct answer is that the agency of a decision is the subjective issue, which means one can only reach the conclusion about what the agency of a decision by choosing the answer. That works perfectly, it has no contradictions, consistent with common discourse, traditional religion, just wonderful.

Just because you have trouble understanding a concept, doesn't mean that it is illogical. My explanation is completely reasonable and logically consistent. You keep on adding things to my claims which aren't logical, but that is on you ... you are using illogical inferences and assumptions.

1 and 2 are both fact, but that doesn't mean that they are the only options. 3 would be "when someone forms an opinion, it is done subjectively". Opinion is not fact, and I've never claimed that it was. You are the only one who has made that claim, and it is based merely on your lack of comprehension.

I'll make it as clear as possible:

1.

So you are saying honesty and beauty have different rules? Or they have the same rules?

What do you mean by rules? Do you mean coming up with an opinion? If so, yes.

 

[ArtieE]

You explain subjectivity by it being subjective, that is circular reasoning. You have to put the word subjectivity on one side, then an "=" sign, and then not put the word subjective on the other side of =.

And here you say the person speaking knows as fact, while just a few posts previous you say that when it becomes publicly known, then it becomes a fact. Big mess.

What leibowde84 says is perfectly logical and rational. You misunderstand and misinterpret and misrepresent what he says and create a big mess.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Just because you have trouble understanding a concept, doesn't mean that it is illogical. My explanation is completely reasonable and logically consistent.

Saying it is completely reasonable and logically consistent, is not the same thing as providing a reasonable and logically consistent explanation.

You say it becomes objective when it becomes known to others, and you say it is objective to the person themselves.

So it means, at the start it is objective to the person saying it is honest, and then as this word spreads, it becomes objectively known to others.

That doesn't make any sense, it is just a lot of contradictions.

Saying you are honest, then means you are honest. Doesn't appear to be any room provided for judgement, it is just saying.

All this complete and utter nonsense you write.....

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

What leibowde84 says is perfectly logical and rational.

Which means of course that people who reject subjectivity conspire together.