Present arguments for atheism

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

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.

But you just said it is not about the word honest. So they were not thinking the words "I am being dishonest". That is not what you are referring to here. You've got absolutely nothing.

 

[leibowde84]

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.



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.

lol ... ok, here you go. "subjectivity = internal reality based upon opinion, personal experience, judgment, personal preference, etc." It is not guessing, as the subject bases their judgment on outside information and appearance. But, B doesn't have any way of knowing, for sure, whether A was honest in reality.

In reality, B "chooses" whether to hold the opinion that A is honest or dishonest based on the available information/evidence. Guessing is an inaccurate way of classifying this process. So, please stop erroneously accusing me of thinking this. It is pretty apparent that you have to stop using your flawed logic to put words in people''s mouths. It is arrogant at best.

B's judgment is subjective because it is based on his internal opinion, interpretation of A's truthfullness rather than a knowledge of A either telling the truth or lying factually. All judgments are based on internal interpretations, and are, thus, subjective.

Beauty is a subjective term, so the claim that a painting is "beautiful" objectively is a farse. A painting is beautiful to the person internally.

 

[leibowde84]

But you just said it is not about the word honest. So they were not thinking the words "I am being dishonest". That is not what you are referring to here. You've got absolutely nothing.

It's not about the words, it's about the meaning of those terms. If A knows he was not telling the truth, he was dishonest, factually. B, not knowing this, makes a subjective judgment about whether A was telling the truth. This is not a guess by any means, as it is based on the evidence available to B.

 

[leibowde84]

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.



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.

I will correct your erroneous claim about my definition:
Leibowde84:
"Subjective = making a judgment based on the available information resulting in an opinion about something or someone."

 

[leibowde84]

But you just said it is not about the word honest. So they were not thinking the words "I am being dishonest". That is not what you are referring to here. You've got absolutely nothing.

In short, they know that they either did or did not tell the truth.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

lol ... ok, here you go. "subjectivity = internal reality based upon opinion, personal experience, judgment, personal preference, etc." It is not guessing, as the subject bases their judgment on outside information and appearance. But, B doesn't have any way of knowing, for sure, whether A was honest in reality.

In reality, B "chooses" whether to hold the opinion that A is honest or dishonest based on the available information/evidence. Guessing is an inaccurate way of classifying this process. So, please stop erroneously accusing me of thinking this. It is pretty apparent that you have to stop using your flawed logic to put words in people''s mouths. It is arrogant at best.

B's judgment is subjective because it is based on his internal opinion, interpretation of A's truthfullness rather than a knowledge of A either telling the truth or lying factually. All judgments are based on internal interpretations, and are, thus, subjective.

Beauty is a subjective term, so the claim that a painting is "beautiful" objectively is a farse. A painting is beautiful to the person internally.

It's on you to make explicit the difference between guessing if there is water on mars, and not knowing for sure if a person is being honest. You don't make a difference really.

And I see that now we are back to that the honest/dishonest person knows as fact, after he did the deed, whether he was honest or not, and supposedly this has nothing to do with saying or thinking the words. Supposedly this is still consistent with it becoming objective when it is known to others, although uh.. the others cannot be sure, meaning they are left with statistics or something, a probability.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I will correct your erroneous claim about my definition:
Leibowde84:
"Subjective = making a judgment based on the available information resulting in an opinion about something or someone."

Yes that looks credible because it is close to the definition of choosing (judgement) about what the agency (someone) of a decision is, resulting in an opinion. Which is of course the logic as was used for millenia in traditional religion and common discourse.

But you still essentially just have words stuck together. What about agency then. There is a word for what does the job of making a decision turn out the way it does, this word is agency. How to identify agency. Or you can not call it agency, just call it X. X makes a possible future the present or not. How then to identify what X is???? The answer is that such identity must be chosen. Fact already has the logic of cause and effect, of being forced, of making a corresponding model, force cannot apply to what is free, so fact cannot apply to X. As per definition this X must be free, because it does the job of choosing.

Yes it appears traditional religion is logically correct to make the existence of the soul, which is agency, a matter of opinion. How could that be that an army of atheists / evolutionists saying **** and bull**** all the time are wrong, while traditional religion has got the formal logic of subjectivity down since millenia?

 

[leibowde84]

It's on you to make explicit the difference between guessing if there is water on mars, and not knowing for sure if a person is being honest. You don't make a difference really.

And I see that now we are back to that the honest/dishonest person knows as fact, after he did the deed, whether he was honest or not, and supposedly this has nothing to do with saying or thinking the words. Supposedly this is still consistent with it becoming objective when it is known to others, although uh.. the others cannot be sure, meaning they are left with statistics or something, a probability.

You keep on jumping to probabilities. Do you think that every person has access to control groups?! That is nuts. We go by feeling, emotion, instinct, and knowledge from experience (among other things). You are arguing with yourself on this one.

 

[leibowde84]

Yes that looks credible because it is close to the definition of choosing (judgement) about what the agency (someone) of a decision is, resulting in an opinion. Which is of course the logic as was used for millenia in traditional religion and common discourse.

But you still essentially just have words stuck together. What about agency then. There is a word for what does the job of making a decision turn out the way it does, this word is agency. How to identify agency. Or you can not call it agency, just call it X. X makes a possible future the present or not. How then to identify what X is???? The answer is that such identity must be chosen. Fact already has the logic of cause and effect, of being forced, of making a corresponding model, force cannot apply to what is free, so fact cannot apply to X. As per definition this X must be free, because it does the job of choosing.

Yes it appears traditional religion is logically correct to make the existence of the soul, which is agency, a matter of opinion. How could that be that an army of atheists / evolutionists saying **** and bull**** all the time are wrong, while traditional religion has got the formal logic of subjectivity down since millenia?

Why do you think I don't recognize agency? I've never claimed that. Really, you have admittedly been making false assumptions about my views. So, take your time and think about what you really want to know. And, be a man and accept my answer and do your best to understand it. I'll make it super simple. But ask a question.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Why do you think I don't recognize agency?

Because you require evidence of an entity which does the job of making a decision turn out the way it does, while agency is categorically a subjective issue.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Anybody got a student to write a paper on what the actual logic in all of this below is?

My guess it amounts to that when you say or think you are honest, then you are in fact honest.

Leibowde wrote:
=================
It is insane to claim that whether someone is being honest at a specific moment in time is not a factual issue.

the person knows whether they were honest or not", factually. After they make a statement

Judgments about whether someone else is being honest will always be subjective.

Whether someone was honest is a matter of fact. Our opinion of whether someone was honest is subjective. Not too difficult of a concept to get.

If we know that a person is saying something that they know to be untrue, they are being dishonest. This is objective. coming to the conclusion that they were lying would be subjective,

I've proven that I do not think of honesty as being objective.

WHETHER SOMEONE WAS HONEST is objective.

A says that the earth is flat. A knows that the earth is spherical. A was dishonest (objective)." = fact
"A says that the earth is flat to B. B assumes that A knows well that the earth is spherical. B thinks that A is being dishonest (subjective)." = opinion/choice

B doesn't have any way of knowing, for sure, whether A was honest in reality.
A decision of whether someone else is being honest is subjective. Whether or not you are correct (whether the person was telling what they thought to be true or not) is objective fact, as it either is or it isnt.

If A says that the earth is flat, but knows in actuality that it is spherical, how is it not a fact that A was dishonest?

Once an opinion becomes known to others, it becomes factual as in it is objective that the person has expressed a certain opinion.

it is objective/factual whether or not someone was being honest in a certain situation, but only they themselves will know it. It is, however, NEVER objective to the person themselves.

The only objective aspect of honesty is whether or not someone was, in actuality, honest. Our opinion of whether they were honest, and their choice to be dishonest were, obviously subjective.

Whether someone was honest or not is an objective issue. Our judgment of whether someone was honest is subjective.
any judgment is subjective. But, once an opinion is known to others, it becomes objective.

the judgment 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.

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
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.

it does become objective when it becomes known to others. It is, however, NEVER objective to the person themselves.

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.

when a judgment is being made about a person being honest, it is always subjective. It only becomes objective after the factwhen the speaker knows whether or not they were honest, factually.
==================

 

[leibowde84]

Because you require evidence of an entity which does the job of making a decision turn out the way it does, while agency is categorically a subjective issue.

I don't require evidence. The OP is asking if there is any evidence. Since I believe in God and explicitly admitted not knowing of any evidence, how can it be claimed that I require evidence?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I don't require evidence. The OP is asking if there is any evidence. Since I believe in God and explicitly admitted not knowing of any evidence, how can it be claimed that I require evidence?

It's a princple thing, you categorize God in the objective, matter of fact, category, which you don't yet have evidence for, but may get later. As distinct from categorizing God with beauty and love, as subjective issues, which can never be made into a fact.

some entity must do the "choosing".
"Agency is basically the subjective nature through which we see reality. It doesn't exist without an entity owning it."

As distinct from traditional religion, where the soul does the job of making a decision turn out the way it does, and it is a matter of faith and revelation wether or not the soul exists.

 

[leibowde84]

It's a princple thing, you categorize God in the objective, matter of fact, category, which you don't yet have evidence for, but may get later. As distinct from categorizing God with beauty and love, as subjective issues, which can never be made into a fact.



As distinct from traditional religion, where the soul does the job of making a decision turn out the way it does, and it is a matter of faith and revelation wether or not the soul exists.

Again, beauty and love are descriptive terms. When I say I love something I am describing how I feel about it. God, on the other hand, is an entity. Our belief in God is subjective. But, whether God exists despite our beliefs is objective. If no minds existed at all, would God still exist?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Again, beauty and love are descriptive terms. When I say I love something I am describing how I feel about it. God, on the other hand, is an entity. Our belief in God is subjective. But, whether God exists despite our beliefs is objective. If no minds existed at all, would God still exist?

More of your method of sticking words together by furiously reading dictionaries. Words are not the point, logic is the point. The question is, what made the decision turn out A in stead of B? You propose an answer forced by evidence (at least in principle) to this question, while I propose to choose the answer to the question. Your logic has contradictions between the freedom of choosing and the force required of evidence, while the logic of common discourse and traditional religion has no contradictions.

 

[leibowde84]

More of your method of sticking words together by furiously reading dictionaries. Words are not the point, logic is the point. The question is, what made the decision turn out A in stead of B? You propose an answer forced by evidence (at least in principle) to this question, while I propose to choose the answer to the question. Your logic has contradictions between the freedom of choosing and the force required of evidence, while the logic of common discourse and traditional religion has no contradictions.

No. Again, you are just having issues with reading comprehension. I asked whether, according to your logical framework, God would still exist even if no conscious mind existed to believe in God. Your failure to even answer this simple question is very revealing, and, no, I am not requiring evidence. I am asking what your opinion on the matter is.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No. Again, you are just having issues with reading comprehension. I asked whether, according to your logical framework, God would still exist even if no conscious mind existed to believe in God. Your failure to even answer this simple question is very revealing, and, no, I am not requiring evidence. I am asking what your opinion on the matter is.

Nothing is revealed, I am just ignoring your question because you are just sticking words together, without regard for logic.

You do some playing with the definition of the word "independent" and "agency". And then you might insist with the authority of some dictionary that the words are defined like such and such. etc. It is all irrellevant to the structure of the conceptual scheme.

What matters is that you propose 1 forced answer as valid, to the question about what makes the decision turn out A in stead of B, while I propose at least 2 answers, any of which answers are valid when chosen.

You require that either the conclusion God exists is correct, or the conclusion God does not, while I require that either answer is valid when chosen.

Your conceptual scheme is shown to dysfunction by that you attribute the logic of force (inherent in the logic of facts), to choosing.

When we ask what makes the decision turn out A in stead of B, then obviously this thing which take care of that must be free, per definition, because it does the job of choosing. While you require this thing to be subject to the logic of fact, while facts use a logic of being forced. The fact is the moon is round, the fact is forced by the evidence coming from the actual moon.

Facts cannot apply, the logic does not work, but opinion does apply.

 

[leibowde84]

Nothing is revealed, I am just ignoring your question because you are just sticking words together, without regard for logic.

You do some playing with the definition of the word "independent" and "agency". And then you might insist with the authority of some dictionary that the words are defined like such and such. etc. It is all irrellevant to the structure of the conceptual scheme.

What matters is that you propose 1 forced answer as valid, to the question about what makes the decision turn out A in stead of B, while I propose at least 2 answers, any of which answers are valid when chosen.

You require that either the conclusion God exists is correct, or the conclusion God does not, while I require that either answer is valid when chosen.

Your conceptual scheme is shown to dysfunction by that you attribute the logic of force (inherent in the logic of facts), to choosing.

When we ask what makes the decision turn out A in stead of B, then obviously this thing which take care of that must be free, per definition, because it does the job of choosing. While you require this thing to be subject to the logic of fact, while facts use a logic of being forced. The fact is the moon is round, the fact is forced by the evidence coming from the actual moon.

Facts cannot apply, the logic does not work, but opinion does apply.

So, you don't understand the question? It seems pretty simple. I am merely asking whether God's existence is dependent on our belief or whether God exists apart from any mind. It is certainly a valid question, and I am merely asking for your belief on the subject, not evidence or proof.

Your claim here is illogical and contradictory as well. If God does not exist, and someone chooses to believe that God does exist, their believe is incorrect. How do you reconcile this and still claim that your reasoning is logically coherent?

 

[leibowde84]

Anybody got a student to write a paper on what the actual logic in all of this below is?

My guess it amounts to that when you say or think you are honest, then you are in fact honest.

Leibowde wrote:
=================
It is insane to claim that whether someone is being honest at a specific moment in time is not a factual issue.

the person knows whether they were honest or not", factually. After they make a statement

Judgments about whether someone else is being honest will always be subjective.

Whether someone was honest is a matter of fact. Our opinion of whether someone was honest is subjective. Not too difficult of a concept to get.

If we know that a person is saying something that they know to be untrue, they are being dishonest. This is objective. coming to the conclusion that they were lying would be subjective,

I've proven that I do not think of honesty as being objective.

WHETHER SOMEONE WAS HONEST is objective.

A says that the earth is flat. A knows that the earth is spherical. A was dishonest (objective)." = fact
"A says that the earth is flat to B. B assumes that A knows well that the earth is spherical. B thinks that A is being dishonest (subjective)." = opinion/choice

B doesn't have any way of knowing, for sure, whether A was honest in reality.
A decision of whether someone else is being honest is subjective. Whether or not you are correct (whether the person was telling what they thought to be true or not) is objective fact, as it either is or it isnt.

If A says that the earth is flat, but knows in actuality that it is spherical, how is it not a fact that A was dishonest?

Once an opinion becomes known to others, it becomes factual as in it is objective that the person has expressed a certain opinion.

it is objective/factual whether or not someone was being honest in a certain situation, but only they themselves will know it. It is, however, NEVER objective to the person themselves.

The only objective aspect of honesty is whether or not someone was, in actuality, honest. Our opinion of whether they were honest, and their choice to be dishonest were, obviously subjective.

Whether someone was honest or not is an objective issue. Our judgment of whether someone was honest is subjective.
any judgment is subjective. But, once an opinion is known to others, it becomes objective.

the judgment 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.

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
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.

it does become objective when it becomes known to others. It is, however, NEVER objective to the person themselves.

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.

when a judgment is being made about a person being honest, it is always subjective. It only becomes objective after the factwhen the speaker knows whether or not they were honest, factually.
==================

This is very easy to understand. It seperates the objective aspect of whether someone was, in fact, honest in a statement they made, and the subjective opinion formed as to whether someone else was honest.

You erroneously point to this statement as showing that I see honesty as objective: "Whether someone was honest is objective". But, this is merely due to your issues with reading comprehension. Here is another simple example.

A knows that 1+1=2. A states that 1+1=3. A was dishonest (objective).

A knows that 1+1=2. A states to B that 1+1=3. B assumes that A knew that he was stating something that is incorrect. B's opinion is that A was dishonest (subjective).

 

[leibowde84]

My question: "Does God exist apart from our belief in him? If no minds existed to believe, would God still exist?"

Your response:

Nothing is revealed, I am just ignoring your question because you are just sticking words together, without regard for logic.

Can you explain why the question was illogical? It seems like it should be pretty easy to understand/answer, but if you woud like me to rephrase it, I am happy to do so. You just have to explain yourself a bit. Up until now you are just throwing blind insults my way, which makes you look like you aren't even reading my questions or you are afraid to answer because it might contradict your point.