Present arguments for atheism

[Yerda]

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

I think we get it. We all reject subjectivity and common discourse and the rules of choosing. I'm willing to agree and accept this if you are willing to just stop posting it and talk about somnething else for a bit.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

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

Everyone in the world is in the conspiracy. Every single one. Your mother, your father everyone.

 

[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. The person speaking knows objectively whether they were honest or not.
2. Once an opinion becomes known to others, it becomes factual as in it is objective that the person has expressed a certain opinion.
3. The "choosing" of any judgment by the individual holding it is subjective.

Subjective: "based on or influenced by personal feelingsss, tastes, or opinions." It is our own internal reality.

 

[Demonslayer]

I think we get it. We all reject subjectivity and common discourse and the rules of choosing. I'm willing to agree and accept this if you are willing to just stop posting it and talk about somnething else for a bit.

I've never seen a single post from this guy that isn't obsessing about subjectivity. It's like his brain is stuck on an endless loop.

 

[ArtieE]

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

No it means that what leibowde84 says is perfectly rational and logical and you misunderstand and misinterpret and misrepresent what he says and create a big mess.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Everyone in the world is in the conspiracy. Every single one. Your mother, your father everyone.

The head vs heart struggle is commonly human, but traditional religion is quite clear in the formal acknowledgement of subjectivity in regards to God and the soul. And common discourse about choosing can only use subjectivity in regards to agency, otherwise the concept of choosing doesn't function.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No it means that what leibowde84 says is perfectly rational and logical and you misunderstand and misinterpret and misrepresent what he says and create a big mess.

You have no idea what Leibowde is saying, and neither does Leibowde.

Question, when is being honest objective and when it is subjective, according to Leibowde's concepts of things?

And when is beauty objective, and when is it subjective, according to Leibowde's conceptual scheme.

 

[leibowde84]

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.....

You are still confused. Yes, it does become objective when it becomes known to others. It is, however, NEVER objective to the person themselves. I have never made that claim, and have, in actuality, repeatedly claimed the oppposite.

Again, judgment is always subjective. Whether you are coming up with a judgment about the beauty of a painting or about someone's honesty, it is always a subjective, internal process. It ONLY becomes objective AFTER THE JUDGMENT IS MADE and becomes known to others.

 

[leibowde84]

No it means that what leibowde84 says is perfectly rational and logical and you misunderstand and misinterpret and misrepresent what he says and create a big mess.

Thank you!! I feel a bit more sane now.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

J
1. The person speaking knows objectively whether they were honest or not.
2. Once an opinion becomes known to others, it becomes factual as in it is objective that the person has expressed a certain opinion.
3. The "choosing" of any judgment by the individual holding it is subjective.

Subjective: "based on or influenced by personal feelingsss, tastes, or opinions." It is our own internal reality.

Yes but is the internal reality a matter of opinion or is it fact. You are ambiguous about it.

1. And that means the person says or thinks the word honest (or dishonest), and knows as fact that he has said or thought this word. It basically means the word honest exists as fact.
2. That basically also just refers to the factual existence of the word honest.
3. There appears to be no mention of how choosing of judgement is related to reaching a conclusion of being honest. The whole word honest is factually absent in your point 3, so as to not make any argument to the point at issue, whatsoever.

 

[ArtieE]

Question, when is being honest objective and when it is subjective, according to Leibowde's concepts of things?

This question makes no sense logically and rationally. Please rephrase.

And when is beauty objective, and when is it subjective, according to Leibowde's conceptual scheme.

This question makes no sense logically or rationally. Please rephrase.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

The head vs heart struggle is commonly human, but traditional religion is quite clear in the formal acknowledgement of subjectivity in regards to God and the soul. And common discourse about choosing can only use subjectivity in regards to agency, otherwise the concept of choosing doesn't function.

I choose head.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

It is, however, NEVER objective to the person themselves.

And how in the galaxy is that consistent with saying:

Leibowde:
"the person speaking knows whether they were honest or not."

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

This question makes no sense logically and rationally. Please rephrase.This question makes no sense logically or rationally. Please rephrase.

That was the correct answer, the question is illogical.

 

[leibowde84]

You have no idea what Leibowde is saying, and neither does Leibowde.

Question, when is being honest objective and when it is subjective, according to Leibowde's concepts of things?

And when is beauty objective, and when is it subjective, according to Leibowde's conceptual scheme.

Again, forming judgments is ALWAYS a subjective process. Whether someone was honest or not, in actuality, is objective, as they either were or they weren't. But, coming to the conclusion that someone was honest is, again, always subjective.

1. Objective = A says that the earth is flat. A knows that the earth is spherical. A was dishonest, objectively.
2. Subjective = A tells B that the earth is flat. B assumes that A knows that the earth is spherical. B's opinion is that A was dishonest.

1. Objective = B states, honestly, that he thinks the painting is beautiful. B's opinion is that the painting is beautiful. A asks C whether B thinks the painting is beautiful. The answer is yes, factually.
2. Subjective = B considers the painting and notices the emotion present in it. B considers the painting beautiful for this reason, subjectively.

 

[ArtieE]

That was the correct answer, the question is illogical.

Yes it is. You are producing illogical questions and posts leibowde84 doesn't.

 

[leibowde84]

And how in the galaxy is that consistent with saying:

Leibowde:
"the person speaking knows whether they were honest or not."

Those statements aren't contradictory. One is pointing to the subjectivity of forming an opinion/judgment (subjective). The other is speaking to the factual knowledge the speaker has after making a statement as to whether the statement was honest. Either it was or it wasn't.

Because "the person knows whether they were honest or not", factually. After they make a statement, they know whether they were telling the truth or whether they were lying. But, when a judgment is being made about a person being honest, it is always subjective. It only becomes objective after the fact when the speaker knows whether or not they were honest, factually.

 

[leibowde84]

Yes but is the internal reality a matter of opinion or is it fact. You are ambiguous about it.

1. And that means the person says or thinks the word honest (or dishonest), and knows as fact that he has said or thought this word. It basically means the word honest exists as fact.
2. That basically also just refers to the factual existence of the word honest.
3. There appears to be no mention of how choosing of judgement is related to reaching a conclusion of being honest. The whole word honest is factually absent in your point 3, so as to not make any argument to the point at issue, whatsoever.

The forming of an internal judgment based on one's internal reality is opinion, by definition. I have stated this repeatedly, and have not been ambiguous about it.

1. I'm not sure what this means. I am in no way making this claim.
2. Again, I am not concerned with the word honest. I am pointing out that a statement is either honest or it is not honest, factually.
3. The word honest is not at issue at all. At issue is whether someone's past statement was honest or whether it was dishonest.

 

[leibowde84]

And how in the galaxy is that consistent with saying:

Leibowde:
"the person speaking knows whether they were honest or not."

I think I get your confusion. When the person is making the judgment in the present, it is always a subjective practice. After the statement is made, however, the person knows whether or not they were honest in their statement, factually. They know whether they thought what they said was the truth or not.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Again, forming judgments is ALWAYS a subjective process.

There you go again explaining how subjectivity works, by saying the word subjective. It is circular reasoning. You have to put subjectivity on the one side of "=" and then not use the word subjective or any synonym of it, on the other side.

Whether someone was honest or not, in actuality, is objective, as they either were or they weren't. But, coming to the conclusion that someone was honest is, again, always subjective.

1. Objective = A says that the earth is flat. A knows that the earth is spherical. A was dishonest, objectively.
2. Subjective = A tells B that the earth is flat. B assumes that A knows that the earth is spherical. B's opinion is that A was dishonest.

So it is the lack of knowledge of B about the knowledge of A, which makes B's conclusion of dishonesty subjective. So it means the definition of subjectivity you actually use is to have a lack of knowledge about something, and then guessing the answer.

But of course, we don't know there is any water on Mars or not, although now the evidence appears to be on the side that there is water on Mars. And in the end we might come to know it as fact. So really you are defining opinion as statistics. But of course we can never find out if a painting is in fact beautiful, like we can find out if or not there is water on Mars, so your construct is just nonsense.

Here we can put 2 definitions of subjectivity side by side, and see which one works.
Leibowde:
subjectivity= guessing about what the facts are when you don't have conclusive evidence, resulting in an opinion
Syamsu:
subjectivity = choosing about what the agency of a decision is, resulting in an opinion.