mad evil scientist pathology

syamsu
Posts: 61
Joined: 2013-01-14
User is offlineOffline
mad evil scientist pathology

 This is about the "irrationality" to reject all emotions, to reject subjectivity, resulting in people becoming like a Hollywood caricature of the emotionless mad evil scientist. Many atheists are affected by this pathology. 

This pathology has the following symptoms:

1 - rejection and or suppression of all knowledge about free will

2 - treating the existence of love and hate as a matter of fact

3 - defining choosing as to mean calculating an optimum, where the result is forced

 

- 1 Knowledge that has the logical form that in the moment X can turn out A or B alternatively, logic of freedom, is currently not accepted in most science. Instead of alternatives and decision most all science uses the logic of force, cause and effect.

The internet is full of such people who say to adore science, they adore facts, and then they don't even accept the obvious fact that freedom is real.... Whatsmore they go out of their way to replace all knowledge in terms of freedom, with knowledge in terms of force. So they will say like that people are forced by some psychological / genetic / environmental mechanism, to replace knowledge about people choosing in freedom.

It is quite an absurd spectacle to see people professing an emphatic love of knowledge on the one hand, and on the other hand surpressing / throwing out a whole class of knowledge which everybody uses on a practical basis in daily life, with very little consideration. 

- 2 The same people will then say that love and hate are some electro-chemical "whatever" in the brain. And as "ought" and "ought not" follows pretty much automatically from what is identified as loving or hateful, these people will either explicitly or implicitly propose to know as matter of fact what "ought" and "ought not" (naturalistic fallacy). Most times this takes the shape of some form of social darwinism, where in talking about the meaning of life, either they say selfishness is right on account of natural selection theory, or they say selfishness is wrong on account of natural selection theory.

- 3 Part of the rejection of the logic of freedom is to redefine all the words associated to free will to give them a logic of force. So this means to redefine choosing as calculating an optimum, as like a chess computing calculates an optimal move, or a thermostat turns the heat on or off. The thermostat is forced in doing what it is, yet they call this choosing.

There is no room for any spontaneous expression of emotion in this way of thinking, altough ofcourse they have redefined the meaning of the words "spontaneous", "expression", "emotion", "subjectivity", "freedom" etc. to say that there really is room for it. It is very telling in their personality that they are coldhearted and calculating.

The correct way to deal with freedom is to categorize between dual substances of "what chooses" and "what is chosen", and then call the first category the spiritual domain, the second the material domain. Together with these dual substances come dual ways of reaching a conclusion, subjectivity and objectivity. You have to choose to identify what is in the spiritual domain, resulting in opinions. You have to measure to identify what is in the material domain, resulting in facts. 

For example; beauty is a love of the way something looks. Love belongs in the category of things that choose, therefore beauty is categorically a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact.

Subjectivity is only validated by accepting the existence of subjectively identified things (duh!) So to deny the spiritual domain altogether because it can't be objectively measured, is to irrationally mix up subjectivity and objectivity, and then completely reject all subjectivity.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
No response? *Wins*

No response?

*Wins*

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


syamsu
Posts: 61
Joined: 2013-01-14
User is offlineOffline
 As I have already

 As I have already explained, you have the alternatives available that you have. It is a matter of fact which alternatives you have available. And the fact is that you don't have the alternative of flying available. This still means you have total freedom to decide the alternatives you do have available, or decide so that you have different alternatives available to choose from later.

Why don't you just admit I am right, acknowledge that you can only subjectively identify love and hate, that you can't objectively measure them. This leaves you still an atheist, and with straightforward acknowledgement of both subjectivity (in respect to what chooses) and objectivity (in respect to what is chosen).

You already accept that beauty is essentially a subjective issue. Now then, this is because beauty is a "love" of the way somebody looks. And since love is subjectively identified, beauty is also a subjective issue. So it means that accepting what I say only validates your current beliefs that you have within socialized understanding.


Antipatris
atheist
Antipatris's picture
Posts: 205
Joined: 2011-05-20
User is offlineOffline
syamsu wrote: As I have

syamsu wrote:

 As I have already explained, ...

 

As people have already explained  to you numerous times, you need to provide proof for your many assertions before you draw conclusions from them.

 

Oh, and when someone asks you a list of questions you obviously are unable to answer, telling them they "write a lot of bs", isn't a very intelligent response.
 

Why not save us all a lot of time and simply admit you have no clue what you're even talking about.

 

Then you can go back to watching your tv shows.


syamsu
Posts: 61
Joined: 2013-01-14
User is offlineOffline
Antipatris wrote:As people

Antipatris wrote:

As people have already explained  to you numerous times, you need to provide proof for your many assertions before you draw conclusions from them.

 

People are drilled towards objectivity in school, and with your misplaced demands for evidence you are rejecting subjectivity altogether.


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2446
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
syamsu wrote:Antipatris

syamsu wrote:

Antipatris wrote:

As people have already explained  to you numerous times, you need to provide proof for your many assertions before you draw conclusions from them.

 

People are drilled towards objectivity in school, and with your misplaced demands for evidence you are rejecting subjectivity altogether.

 

 

               You have still NOT provided any proof of your assertions.  WHAT  IS  YOUR EVIDENCE!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


syamsu
Posts: 61
Joined: 2013-01-14
User is offlineOffline
Objectivity is validated by

Objectivity is validated by accepting the existence of objectively measurable things (duh!) 

Subjectivety is validated by accepting the existence of subectively identified things (duh!)

Therefore to reject the existence of subectively identified things because they cannot be objectively measured, is to irrationally compete objectivity against subjectivity, resulting in the rejection of subjectivity altogether.

The incessant demanding for evidence of a subjectively identified something like God, is indicative of rejection of subjectivity altogether.

 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5520
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
syamsu wrote:Antipatris

syamsu wrote:

Antipatris wrote:

As people have already explained  to you numerous times, you need to provide proof for your many assertions before you draw conclusions from them.

 

People are drilled towards objectivity in school, and with your misplaced demands for evidence you are rejecting subjectivity altogether.

There is no reason subjective claims can't be supported with evidence. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5520
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
syamsu wrote:Objectivity is

syamsu wrote:

Objectivity is validated by accepting the existence of objectively measurable things (duh!) 

No, objectivity is validated by conducting many subjective measurements and getting the same result regardless of the subject doing the measuring. (duh!)

Objectivity and subjectivity are not mutually exclusive- objective facts can and often are drawn from subjective evidence (ie evidence whose interpretation relies upon the subject interpreting it). 

 

syamsu wrote:

Subjectivety is validated by accepting the existence of subectively identified things (duh!)

??? if you say so, that sentence doesn't even make sense. And again, no one is rejecting the existence of subjectively identified things. 

 

syamsu wrote:

Therefore to reject the existence of subectively identified things because they cannot be objectively measured, is to irrationally compete objectivity against subjectivity, resulting in the rejection of subjectivity altogether.

It is irrational and you are irrational for doing so. Objectivity and subjectivity are not in competition with each other anywhere other than in your own mind. No one has rejected subjectivity altogether. 

 

syamsu wrote:

The incessant demanding for evidence of a subjectively identified something like God, is indicative of rejection of subjectivity altogether.

If I made the claim "I love dogs" it is a subjective claim- that is that I am expressing that a particular subject (me) has a subjective emotion towards particular animals. So you ask me for evidence that I in fact love dogs- I can show you my avatar which hasn't changed in five years, I can refer you to numerous posts where I have said positive things about dogs, and point to actions I have performed in my life demonstrating my positive feelings towards dogs. There is plenty of evidence supporting that claim.

Now if I made the claim "I love Obama" then you would have good reason to be skeptical as there is significant evidence available that I in fact do not. You would have good reason to believe that I was lying about my feelings. 

Sorry pal, you can't use subjectivity as a shield to protect you from needing evidence to support your unbelievable claims, even if you are making claims that are of a subjective nature. Which by the way the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent being is clearly one that could be determined objectively- such a being either exists regardless of the subject or doesn't exist regardless of the subject and would effect the world in objective ways.

Unless of course that being only exists inside your head. In which case it only exists subjectively (you being the subject) inside your own head and only influences you- much like any other fantasies that you have. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:. Sorry

Beyond Saving wrote:

Sorry pal, you can't use subjectivity as a shield to protect you from needing evidence to support your unbelievable claims, even if you are making claims that are of a subjective nature. Which by the way the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent being is clearly one that could be determined objectively- such a being either exists regardless of the subject or doesn't exist regardless of the subject and would effect the world in objective ways.

Unless of course that being only exists inside your head. In which case it only exists subjectively (you being the subject) inside your own head and only influences you- much like any other fantasies that you have. 

Which is EXACTLY what he is doing, hiding behind the medium of subjectivity and using a lot of meaningless assertions and semi-coherent time-wasting thought experiments, that are ultimately boiling down to choosing subjectivity over objectivity and the assertions about Atheism rejecting subjectivity. Then he keeps falling back on terms like freedom and force, and pretty much just twists them around and around until they are utterly useless.

Which is one of the reasons that I quit fooling with him and I don't believe that he is coherent enough to have written those wiki articles either. Call it my subjective interpretation based on the horseshit that has been typed on here.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
syamsu wrote:So? It means

syamsu wrote:

So? It means you are contesting what I say with "brainprocesses giving rise to the you", without actually pointing out any fault in what I say.

 

Okay, here is the sequence you laid out for me:

- X decides between A and B in the moment

- X chooses B

- Q: what made the choice turn out B instead of A?

- make at least 2 alternatives to answer the question

- 1 it was hate that made the choice turn out B

- 2 it was love that made the decision turn out B

- you decide in the moment between the alternatives, you choose alternative 1

- which results in the OPINION that it was hate which made the choice turn out B instead of A

 

Wait, um, are you just saying that choices have no cause?

 

Also, I'd like an answer to my question about hell in Islam, when you get the chance.

 


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
I'm sorry to disregard the

I'm sorry to disregard the ongoing conversation.  I just want to sum up my understanding of what you're proposing.  

Fist of all, I had two glasses of wine, and I watch about 1 hour of TV a week (mostly news), so most of your references are over my head.  I have heard of the shows, but aside from a very vague caricature, I have no idea what they contain.  That being said, it seems to me as though your theory has four distinct points:

1.  Free will exists

2.  You believe there is a dualistic nature to humans, as in the mind being immaterial (whatever that means)

3.  You believe subjectivity is self evident, and any appeal to objectivity in disproving it is by definition self refuting.

4.  You believe that all/most atheists are strong determinists, monistic objectivists, and therefore suffer from said pathology.

Am I correct so far?

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


syamsu
Posts: 61
Joined: 2013-01-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Sorry

Beyond Saving wrote:

Sorry pal, you can't use subjectivity as a shield to protect you from needing evidence to support your unbelievable claims, even if you are making claims that are of a subjective nature. Which by the way the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent being is clearly one that could be determined objectively- such a being either exists regardless of the subject or doesn't exist regardless of the subject and would effect the world in objective ways.

Unless of course that being only exists inside your head. In which case it only exists subjectively (you being the subject) inside your own head and only influences you- much like any other fantasies that you have. 

You are just proving my case that you are incapable to deal with subjectivity. All decisions leave no evidence whatsoever about the spirit in which they are made, because all decisions are free. All decisions essentially look like they could have turned out 0 or 1 in the moment, and then they turned out one of either way, for instance 1. There is no, and cannot be, any evidence for what decided it in such logic. Which is ofcourse why you try to say that free will is not real. 

Then you again bring up the incorrect fantasy v reality distinction, to replace the objective v subjective distinction, which you just made a mess of.  

Stop all that nonsense. Just find specific fault in the steps I wrote, instead of twisting and turning, and acting like some kind of lawyer who defends atheism at all cost. It is of no benefit to atheists to be defended to act irrationally, to reject subjectivity altogether. Atheists require straightforward acceptance of subjectivity, straightforward acceptance of the reality of freedom, and not twisting and turning that objectivity seems to be equated with subjectivity and force equated with freedom. That does not actually help atheists any.


syamsu
Posts: 61
Joined: 2013-01-14
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:syamsu

blacklight915 wrote:

syamsu wrote:

So? It means you are contesting what I say with "brainprocesses giving rise to the you", without actually pointing out any fault in what I say.

 

Okay, here is the sequence you laid out for me:

- X decides between A and B in the moment

- X chooses B

- Q: what made the choice turn out B instead of A?

- make at least 2 alternatives to answer the question

- 1 it was hate that made the choice turn out B

- 2 it was love that made the decision turn out B

- you decide in the moment between the alternatives, you choose alternative 1

- which results in the OPINION that it was hate which made the choice turn out B instead of A

 

Wait, um, are you just saying that choices have no cause?

 

Also, I'd like an answer to my question about hell in Islam, when you get the chance.

 

Indeed the logic does not treat decisions as being forced. Now criticize the logic, find fault in it. 

 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5520
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
syamsu wrote:You are just

syamsu wrote:

You are just proving my case that you are incapable to deal with subjectivity. All decisions leave no evidence whatsoever about the spirit in which they are made, because all decisions are free. All decisions essentially look like they could have turned out 0 or 1 in the moment, and then they turned out one of either way, for instance 1. There is no, and cannot be, any evidence for what decided it in such logic. Which is ofcourse why you try to say that free will is not real.

I never said free will is not real, I said the exact opposite multiple times. I agree we have free will, I don't agree that there is some immaterial part of us that makes decisions. Of course there is evidence about the spirit in which decisions are made. Saying that a particular decisions could have turned out to be either A or B does not mean that both possibilities are equally probable. Nor does it mean that we cannot draw conclusions based on the decision itself.

When I walk up to a dog I have a choice, I could A- kick the dog or B- pet the dog. Any given time this situation arises I could choose either way. Now after several thousand times I consistently chose B- I could choose A but me choosing B again is far more probable. You as the observer seeing the results of my decision could accept that as evidence that I love dogs. All of your decisions leave evidence, we don't make our decisions in a vacuum with a random number generator.

 

syamsu wrote:
 

Then you again bring up the incorrect fantasy v reality distinction, to replace the objective v subjective distinction, which you just made a mess of.  

Where is my explanation of objective and subjective wrong? Go educate yourself.

 

syamsu wrote:

Just find specific fault in the steps I wrote, instead of twisting and turning, and acting like some kind of lawyer who defends atheism at all cost. It is of no benefit to atheists to be defended to act irrationally, to reject subjectivity altogether. Atheists require straightforward acceptance of subjectivity, straightforward acceptance of the reality of freedom, and not twisting and turning that objectivity seems to be equated with subjectivity and force equated with freedom. That does not actually help atheists any.

Show me where I have rejected subjectivity. You have repeatedly made this demonstrably false claim. I accept that you are a complete idiot, which is a subjective claim, therefore I accept subjectivity. Your specific fault is that you don't understand the words subjective and objective. Your other specific fault is that you make several claims about what atheists believe that are false. Your third specific fault is that you apparently lack basic reading comprehension skills. Your final fault is that I am getting bored with this, so if you can construct a post that addresses my words instead of the imaginary strawman you have created I will respond. If you continue to just repeat yourself I am going to exercise my freewill and put my time to better use and allow Ktulu to bat you around for a bit. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


syamsu
Posts: 61
Joined: 2013-01-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Show me

Beyond Saving wrote:

Show me where I have rejected subjectivity. You have repeatedly made this demonstrably false claim.

By that you require evidence for subjectivity, making subjectivity into objectivity.

Then you pretend there is some non-evidence part to subjectivity, but then you go on to specifically reject the non-evidence part of subjectivity, in saying that you reject reaching a conclusion by choosing in the moment, because that is "random".

Your argument really is as stupid as it sounds, you make subjectivity use the same logic as objectivity, just like you elsewhere use a logic of being forced for what you call freedom. 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:Also,

blacklight915 wrote:

Also, I'd like an answer to my question about hell in Islam, when you get the chance.

Our friend is, understandably, a little hesitant about spilling the beans, so I will do it for him : 

 

Yes, according to islam, you (and me as well) will go to hell, providing we knew about islam and rejected it.

 

So yeah, see you there. Bring some beer. 

 

Oh, and here's the brochure :  

http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/344/viewall/

It's got a picture and everything !


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
syamsu wrote:Beyond Saving

syamsu wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Show me where I have rejected subjectivity. You have repeatedly made this demonstrably false claim.

By that you require evidence for subjectivity, making subjectivity into objectivity.

Then you pretend there is some non-evidence part to subjectivity, but then you go on to specifically reject the non-evidence part of subjectivity, in saying that you reject reaching a conclusion by choosing in the moment, because that is "random".

Your argument really is as stupid as it sounds, you make subjectivity use the same logic as objectivity, just like you elsewhere use a logic of being forced for what you call freedom. 

 

Your nonsensical reaction shows you didn't bother to read his post. Either that, or there is some reading comprehension problem, possibly caused by English not being your first language.

It is rather entertaining to see you repeatedly ask people to "find fault in the logic", and then when they do, you invariably start complaining that they're "writing bs". Yes, that's quite the rebuttal. Good job ! 

Still, I have to thank you for providing that link to "creationwiki". I had no idea such time-wasting drivel existed. I have requested an account so I can edit your little diatribe. Smiling

 

 

As you may have noticed, I have adopted your tone in this reply, so whining about it would make very little sense. (Don't let that stop you)


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote: Your

Anonymouse wrote:

 

Your nonsensical reaction shows you didn't bother to read his post. Either that, or there is some reading comprehension problem, possibly caused by English not being your first language.

It is rather entertaining to see you repeatedly ask people to "find fault in the logic", and then when they do, you invariably start complaining that they're "writing bs". Yes, that's quite the rebuttal. Good job ! 

Still, I have to thank you for providing that link to "creationwiki". I had no idea such time-wasting drivel existed. I have requested an account so I can edit your little diatribe. Smiling

  

As you may have noticed, I have adopted your tone in this reply, so whining about it would make very little sense. (Don't let that stop you)

ROFLMAO ! Laughing out loud

Before you edit it all up that wiki stuff, you must first provide evidence that you are doing it from a position of freedom and not a position of force, the fault in the logic is that your using force to make a decision as all Atheists are sometimes known to do. By calling wiki drivel, we have rejected the subjective nature of the objective reality. Smiling

Science has proven (I will not provide any links because NONE exist, but I am saying this from a subjective standpoint) Science has proven that people rejecting the subjectivity of a troll's authority leads to cold emotionless decisions that are made from the position of force objectivity.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


syamsu
Posts: 61
Joined: 2013-01-14
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:syamsu

Anonymouse wrote:

syamsu wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Show me where I have rejected subjectivity. You have repeatedly made this demonstrably false claim.

By that you require evidence for subjectivity, making subjectivity into objectivity.

Then you pretend there is some non-evidence part to subjectivity, but then you go on to specifically reject the non-evidence part of subjectivity, in saying that you reject reaching a conclusion by choosing in the moment, because that is "random".

Your argument really is as stupid as it sounds, you make subjectivity use the same logic as objectivity, just like you elsewhere use a logic of being forced for what you call freedom. 

 

Your nonsensical reaction shows you didn't bother to read his post. Either that, or there is some reading comprehension problem, possibly caused by English not being your first language.

It is rather entertaining to see you repeatedly ask people to "find fault in the logic", and then when they do, you invariably start complaining that they're "writing bs". Yes, that's quite the rebuttal. Good job ! 

Still, I have to thank you for providing that link to "creationwiki". I had no idea such time-wasting drivel existed. I have requested an account so I can edit your little diatribe. Smiling

 

 

As you may have noticed, I have adopted your tone in this reply, so whining about it would make very little sense. (Don't let that stop you)

I guess this is your coming out as an unapologetic intellectual thug.

 

 Note to Editors: All contributing editors must be creationists (i.e. those who believe the universe and life on earth were created by God). Non-creationists are prohibited from editing articles, except for spelling and grammar corrections. However, anyone is permitted to review articles using the discussion pages adjoining any specific article. Continued participation is reliant upon the careful observance of Creation Wikipolicies and administrative directives.


syamsu
Posts: 61
Joined: 2013-01-14
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote: has

harleysportster wrote:

 has proven (I will not provide any links because NONE exist, but I am saying this from a subjective standpoint) Science has proven that people rejecting the subjectivity of a troll's authority leads to cold emotionless decisions that are made from the position of force objectivity.

The links to some psychological studies which show the bad / good effects of disbelief / belief in free will are on the creationwiki page.

Together with throwing out free will, Naturalists are trying to destroy belief in the self which does the deciding, because they cannot find the self in the brain. Ofcourse they have excluded the possibility of subjectively identifying the self, because subjectivity they regard as evil. 

http://www.naturalism.org/freewill.htm

And note that this all is about nothing else then that they refuse to reach a conclusion about what exists by choosing the answer in the moment from available alternatives. They are simply against ALL subjectivity.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Ah, good, you didn't let it

Ah, good, you didn't let it stop you. Excellent.

syamsu wrote:
I guess this is your coming out as an unapologetic intellectual thug.

Nope, merely pointing out your reply to Beyond Saving's post shows you didn't bother to read it. That or the other problem. 

I also mentioned the problem with your "bs" rebuttal. This seems to be a little too much for you to take on board for the moment.

And I find it amusing that my little imitation of your writing style makes you cry "unapologetic intellectual thug". 

 

syamsu wrote:
 Note to Editors: All contributing editors must be creationists (i.e. those who believe the universe and life on earth were created by God). Non-creationists are prohibited from editing articles, except for spelling and grammar corrections. However, anyone is permitted to review articles using the discussion pages adjoining any specific article. Continued participation is reliant upon the careful observance of Creation Wikipolicies and administrative directives.
 

LOL ! 

Oh, this is hilarious ! Thank you !


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
syamsu wrote:Together with

syamsu wrote:

Together with throwing out free will, Naturalists are trying to destroy belief in the self which does the deciding, because they cannot find the self in the brain. Ofcourse they have excluded the possibility of subjectively identifying the self, because subjectivity they regard as evil. 

http://www.naturalism.org/freewill.htm

And note that this all is about nothing else then that they refuse to reach a conclusion about what exists by choosing the answer in the moment from available alternatives. They are simply against ALL subjectivity.

From the link that you provided : The naturalist doesn't suppose human beings, complex and multi-talented though they are, transcend causal laws and explanations in their behavior. The naturalist view is therefore directly at odds with the widespread culturally-transmitted assumption in the West that human agents have supernatural souls with contra-causal free will. Souls are causally privileged over their surroundings, little first causes, little gods: each of us has the power to have done otherwise in the exact situation in which we didn't do otherwise. Since this assumption expresses itself in our concepts of blame, credit, responsibility, self-worth and deservingness, to challenge it has all sorts of ramifications, personal, social and political. To my knowledge, the CFN is the only organization that is drawing out and publicizing the progressive, humanistic implications of the science-based denial of contra-causal free will.

First of all, not all Atheists are naturalists, and second of all, there is nothing on that page about being "against subjectivity".

The ramification is that their is not some sort of "spiritual" thing that is an granting us "will".

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


syamsu
Posts: 61
Joined: 2013-01-14
User is offlineOffline
" Of course there is

Of course there is evidence about the spirit in which decisions are made.

All of your decisions leave evidence, we don't make our decisions in a vacuum with a random number generator."

 

Which means subjectivity works by evidence, just like objectivity. Specifically in reference to randomness, choosing a conclusion in the moment from available alternatives is rejected as any part of subjectivity.

 


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
syamsu wrote: Which means

syamsu wrote:

 

Which means subjectivity works by evidence, just like objectivity. Specifically in reference to randomness, choosing a conclusion in the moment from available alternatives is rejected as any part of subjectivity.

 

How is that "rejected?" Split second decisions are made by experiences.

For instances, if the throttle gets stuck on the bike, from several different experiences, I know to simply turn the bike off.

The same decision I might not have made when I was a new rider.

It is subjective because experience pertains to "mind".

 

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


syamsu
Posts: 61
Joined: 2013-01-14
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:syamsu

harleysportster wrote:

syamsu wrote:

Together with throwing out free will, Naturalists are trying to destroy belief in the self which does the deciding, because they cannot find the self in the brain. Ofcourse they have excluded the possibility of subjectively identifying the self, because subjectivity they regard as evil. 

http://www.naturalism.org/freewill.htm

And note that this all is about nothing else then that they refuse to reach a conclusion about what exists by choosing the answer in the moment from available alternatives. They are simply against ALL subjectivity.

From the link that you provided : The naturalist doesn't suppose human beings, complex and multi-talented though they are, transcend causal laws and explanations in their behavior. The naturalist view is therefore directly at odds with the widespread culturally-transmitted assumption in the West that human agents have supernatural souls with contra-causal free will. Souls are causally privileged over their surroundings, little first causes, little gods: each of us has the power to have done otherwise in the exact situation in which we didn't do otherwise. Since this assumption expresses itself in our concepts of blame, credit, responsibility, self-worth and deservingness, to challenge it has all sorts of ramifications, personal, social and political. To my knowledge, the CFN is the only organization that is drawing out and publicizing the progressive, humanistic implications of the science-based denial of contra-causal free will.

First of all, not all Atheists are naturalists, and second of all, there is nothing on that page about being "against subjectivity".

The ramification is that their is not some sort of "spiritual" thing that is an granting us "will".

Don't BS me with semantics. They are against reaching a conclusion about what exists by choosing the answer in freedom from available alternatives in the moment.

Creationism does quite openly and straightforwardly support this procedure of reaching a conclusion by choosing the answer. 

 


syamsu
Posts: 61
Joined: 2013-01-14
User is offlineOffline
 All decisions are made in

 All decisions are made in the moment.

You are still using the idea of decisionmaking as sorting out the best result, like with your bike, you do what is best, just like the chesscomputer sorts out the best. You are using a logic of force with the word choosing. 

In real decisionmaking the alternatives are in the future, similar as like causes are in the past. And then you don't calculate with real alternatives, but you calculate with descriptions of alternatives. 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
syamsu wrote:Don't BS me

syamsu wrote:

Don't BS me with semantics. 

For pete's sake, he didn't ! Will you kindly stop throwing BS around everywhere and simply read what people write ? 


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
syamsu wrote:Don't BS me

syamsu wrote:

Don't BS me with semantics. They are against reaching a conclusion about what exists by choosing the answer in freedom from available alternatives in the moment.

Creationism does quite openly and straightforwardly support this procedure of reaching a conclusion by choosing the answer. 

 

Your the one using the semantics. You are taking what was said on the naturalist page and turning it into "They are against subjectivity."

Quote where they said that or are you trying to "BS" me with semantics ?

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
syamsu wrote:In real

syamsu wrote:

In real decisionmaking the alternatives are in the future, similar as like causes are in the past. And then you don't calculate with real alternatives, but you calculate with descriptions of alternatives. 

Descriptions of alternatives ?

Ok, I either handle the throttle, or end up badly hurt by the side of the road. I don't like pain, so I choose not to do that.

If decision-making is not sorting out the best result, then what is it ?

If I chose to miss work, I don't get paid. If I choose to work, I get paid.

Name me a decision that you make that is not based on "sorting out the best result".

syamsu wrote:

 All decisions are made in the moment.

You are still using the idea of decisionmaking as sorting out the best result, like with your bike, you do what is best, just like the chesscomputer sorts out the best. You are using a logic of force with the word choosing. 

No all decisions are not "made in the moment". I can either go on an annual run a few months from now, or I can not. I calculate up fuel costs, time off, implications of what a road trip to Pennsylvania might entail, weather conditions, if anyone that I know is going etc. etc.

So, give me a personal example of when you do NOT use this "logic of force" as a choosing.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


syamsu
Posts: 61
Joined: 2013-01-14
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:Your

harleysportster wrote:

Your the one using the semantics. You are taking what was said on the naturalist page and turning it into "They are against subjectivity."

Quote where they said that or are you trying to "BS" me with semantics ?

In validating subjectivity, I am talking about a step by step logical procedure that I laid out.

And then you are saying that naturalists use the word subjectivity, so it proves they support subjectivity. That is just semantics. They and you reject the procedure I described.  

 


syamsu
Posts: 61
Joined: 2013-01-14
User is offlineOffline
 It is sufficient to show

 It is sufficient to show that a chesscomputer (those without random function) sorts out the best result, in arguing that the definition of choosing as sorting out a best result is BS which equates freedom with being forced.

And your bs that you can detach your body from it's physical future of alternatives is based on your bs of regarding choosing as sorting out a best result.

 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
syamsu wrote:harleysportster

syamsu wrote:

harleysportster wrote:

Your the one using the semantics. You are taking what was said on the naturalist page and turning it into "They are against subjectivity."

Quote where they said that or are you trying to "BS" me with semantics ?

In validating subjectivity, I am talking about a step by step logical procedure that I laid out.

And then you are saying that naturalists use the word subjectivity, so it proves they support subjectivity. That is just semantics. They and you reject the procedure I described.  

 

 

For the last time : READ WHAT PEOPLE WRITE ! Don't just make up stuff you're more comfortable with !

And if you have some kind of problem with that site you brought up yourself, then click their feedback button and tell them. (If that results in some kind of correspondence, please do post it here. We would appreciate the entertainment)


 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
syamsu wrote:harleysportster

DP


 


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
syamsu wrote:And then you

syamsu wrote:

And then you are saying that naturalists use the word subjectivity, so it proves they support subjectivity. That is just semantics. They and you reject the procedure I described.  

 

There is nothing on that page that says a goddamn thing about this tripe your talking.

Are you on medication ?

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
syamsu wrote:Indeed the

syamsu wrote:

Indeed the logic does not treat decisions as being forced. Now criticize the logic, find fault in it.

I want to be sure I understand said logic before I attempt to point out any flaws it may have.

So, to the question of whether or not choices have a cause, your answer is "no"?  I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this answer; I just want to be sure I understand your position.

 

Anonymouse wrote:

 

Our friend is, understandably, a little hesitant about spilling the beans, so I will do it for him : 

Yes, according to islam, you (and me as well) will go to hell, providing we knew about islam and rejected it.

So yeah, see you there. Bring some beer.

Oh, and here's the brochure :  

http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/344/viewall/

It's got a picture and everything !

LOL, thanks. 

 

So, syamsu, would you say the description of hell provided on "www.islamreligion.com" is in line with what you believe?

 


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
syamsu wrote: It is

syamsu wrote:

 It is sufficient to show that a chesscomputer (those without random function) sorts out the best result, in arguing that the definition of choosing as sorting out a best result is BS which equates freedom with being forced.

And your bs that you can detach your body from it's physical future of alternatives is based on your bs of regarding choosing as sorting out a best result.

 

And yet you offer not one bit of  evidence to back up your "BS".

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
syamsu

syamsu wrote:
~snip~

Translation: I win.

syamsu wrote:
Why don't you just admit I am right,

Because you are wrong even when you're right. It's rather amusing actually.

syamsu wrote:
acknowledge that you can only subjectively identify love and hate, that you can't objectively measure them.

Love and hate don't exist objectively. There MUST be subjectiveness for either to exist in the first place. See how you're right and wrong simultaneously? Probably not...

Nothing else you said was worth more typing on my part.

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


syamsu
Posts: 61
Joined: 2013-01-14
User is offlineOffline
 To be technical, I have

 To be technical, I have seen cause and effect figured as x"retardationx" in models which treat freedom as real. But you see the retarded values are inconsequential for a simple theory on free will, just like the values of the alternatives in the future are inconsequential. So then will you comment on what I actually wrote, instead of exercising your pren-occupation with cause and effectk?a


syamsu
Posts: 61
Joined: 2013-01-14
User is offlineOffline
 chicken and egg question,

 chicken and egg question, you have the wrong answer. love creates babies, love chooses, and choosing creates information, and choosing depends on alternative futures, and it doesnt require sophisticated machinery to have an alternative futures. The rocky mountains could have alternatively turned out different. 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5520
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
syamsu wrote: So then will

syamsu wrote:
 

So then will you comment on what I actually wrote, instead of exercising your pren-occupation with cause and effectk? 

Lol 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
syamsu wrote: chicken and

syamsu wrote:

 chicken and egg question, you have the wrong answer. love creates babies, love chooses, and choosing creates information, and choosing depends on alternative futures, and it doesnt require sophisticated machinery to have an alternative futures. The rocky mountains could have alternatively turned out different. 

Forget the medication. I want to know what drugs he is taking.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Antipatris
atheist
Antipatris's picture
Posts: 205
Joined: 2011-05-20
User is offlineOffline
syamsu wrote:Antipatris

syamsu wrote:

Antipatris wrote:

As people have already explained  to you numerous times, you need to provide proof for your many assertions before you draw conclusions from them.

 

People are drilled towards objectivity in school, and with your misplaced demands for evidence you are rejecting subjectivity altogether.

 

Billy : "Teacher, why is there a picture of the Loch Ness monster in my biology textbook ?"

 

Teacher : "Billy, with your misplaced demands for evidence, you are rejecting subjectivity altogether. Now shut up and turn to the chapter on demons"

 

Billy : "Cool !!"

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13234
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I think this one is too far

I think this one is too far gone for any real communication. Sad

Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


syamsu
Posts: 61
Joined: 2013-01-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:syamsu

Beyond Saving wrote:

syamsu wrote:
 

So then will you comment on what I actually wrote, instead of exercising your pren-occupation with cause and effectk? 

Lol 

I see that you are all left to the usual intellectual thuggery. 

Beyhond Saving argued that objectivity is reaching a conclusion forced by evidence, and subjectivity same is reaching a conclusion forced by evidence. And then he said some "beautiful" words about how everything is fine with atheists accepting subjectively identified things. 

I keep track of the logic that people use, and what Beyond Saving said was some admixture of freedom and force, then tending towards force, ending up with a baseless affirmation of the human spirit.

 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
syamsu wrote:Beyond Saving

syamsu wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

syamsu wrote:
 

So then will you comment on what I actually wrote, instead of exercising your pren-occupation with cause and effectk? 

Lol 

I see that you are all left to the usual intellectual thuggery. 

Found two new favorite words, have you ? Saves you the trouble of dealing with people's responses, I guess. Nice trick.

This really is hilarious. Being accused of "intellectual thuggery" by a guy who writes for creationwiki. 

Read this thread from beginning to end. Notice where you fail. 

syamsu wrote:
 Beyhond Saving argued that objectivity is reaching a conclusion forced by evidence, and subjectivity same is reaching a conclusion forced by evidence. And then he said some "beautiful" words about how everything is fine with atheists accepting subjectively identified things. 

I keep track of the logic that people use, and what Beyond Saving said was some admixture of freedom and force, then tending towards force, ending up with a baseless affirmation of the human spirit.

 

You keep track of nothing but your own ego.

You ask people to point out the problem with your "logic". They do. Then you either use your favorite two letters in the alphabet (bs, again, great rebuttal !), or you rewrite their posts to something you like better. 

Excuse me while I clean your pigeon poop off our chessboard.


 


Antipatris
atheist
Antipatris's picture
Posts: 205
Joined: 2011-05-20
User is offlineOffline
syamsu wrote:I see that you

syamsu wrote:
I see that you are all left to the usual intellectual thuggery.
 

Could you please stop whining and start providing some proof for all your assertions ? 

I've explained the problem with your logic in a nice little story for you, and you still don't get it ? Seriously ? 


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
syamsu wrote:I see that you

syamsu wrote:

I see that you are all left to the usual intellectual thuggery. 

Intellectual thuggery ? I must admit that is a good one. I have never heard that one before

syamsy wrote:

Beyhond Saving argued that objectivity is reaching a conclusion forced by evidence, and subjectivity same is reaching a conclusion forced by evidence. And then he said some "beautiful" words about how everything is fine with atheists accepting subjectively identified things. 

That would be "Beyond Saving" not "Beyhond Saving". I don't think Beyhond is a word, even in terms of subjectivity.

symasu wrote:

I keep track of the logic that people use, and what Beyond Saving said was some admixture of freedom and force, then tending towards force, ending up with a baseless affirmation of the human spirit.

 

Did you even read the responses that "Beyhond" wrote ? Demonstrate where he said any of this stuff that you are asserting.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


syamsu
Posts: 61
Joined: 2013-01-14
User is offlineOffline
I don't really have an

I don't really have an interest in researching people affected by mad evil scientist pathology. Deny free will, not take care of the knowledge about it, then probably you will get many bizarre effects. Bizarre ways in which those affected build their own system of knowledge, to get some practical work out of it for their daily life. I can't trace the logic in it, it looks like a jumbled mess.

Not so with Ockham, who unlike you all was a fine logician.  The thing that chooses can only be identified by choosing what it is. That logic works, validates subjectivity, validates objectvity, it is of practical use, and consistent with most common knowledge.

There have been zero comments of the "rational" people, on where any fault in this logic might be. 

 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5520
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:syamsu

harleysportster wrote:

syamsu wrote:

I see that you are all left to the usual intellectual thuggery. 

Intellectual thuggery ? I must admit that is a good one. I have never heard that one before

syamsy wrote:

Beyhond Saving argued that objectivity is reaching a conclusion forced by evidence, and subjectivity same is reaching a conclusion forced by evidence. And then he said some "beautiful" words about how everything is fine with atheists accepting subjectively identified things. 

That would be "Beyond Saving" not "Beyhond Saving". I don't think Beyhond is a word, even in terms of subjectivity.

symasu wrote:

I keep track of the logic that people use, and what Beyond Saving said was some admixture of freedom and force, then tending towards force, ending up with a baseless affirmation of the human spirit.

 

Did you even read the responses that "Beyhond" wrote ? Demonstrate where he said any of this stuff that you are asserting.

"Beyhond" is my evil twin brother who has been apparently scrambling my words before they reach symasu's screen. That explains why symasu has yet to respond directly to anything I said. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


syamsu
Posts: 61
Joined: 2013-01-14
User is offlineOffline
- you have said that

- you have said that subjectivity works based on evidence.

- that a decision can turn out 2 or more ways in the moment.

- that a decision is not random in isolation

- that only material things exist, yet you talk about the spirit

How this all fits together is anybody's guess. They are a sequence of unrelated assertions.