Re: This is Bluey

[Azdgari]

That's because of the way you define "opinion", as well as what you think about proving or disproving the existence of deities. I think an opinion is on a subjective topic.

I never said it was a matter of opinion.  It's objectively true or false.  But that doesn't necessarily impact one's thought process on the subject.  A matter of opinon and a matter of objective reality can both be processed in the same manner intellectually (whether they should or not).  So when referring to one's thoughts themselves (the "opinion"), it's beside the point to consider whether the thoughts pertain to something that is sujective or objective.  The mental actions are the same.

[Dante]

So when referring to one's thoughts themselves (the "opinion"), it's beside the point to consider whether the thoughts pertain to something that is sujective or objective.  The mental actions are the same.

How do you know?

I don't think that I agree. 

"1+1=2" or any other objective problem doesn't feel, in my mind, like the same thought process as "J-Lo has a bangin' body!" or any other subjective opinion.

[One Above All]

See Dante's analogy.[1]

1.	I was trying to come up with one, but I couldn't.

[Azdgari]

Dante, do you believe that your opinion of J-Lo's body is objectively true?

No? Then your analogy is irrelevant to what I'm talking about.

[One Above All]

The analogy stands. You are comparing 2+2=4[1] with "this shirt looks good"[2].

1.	Objective, absolute truth.
2.	Subjective, relative truth.

[Azdgari]

No, I am not.  You are lying.  I corrected that (understandable) misinterpretation of my post, and now you are insisting that I am wrong about my own thought process.

Incidentally, this is a good example.  My thoughts have an objective state.  You hold a false positon about them.  That position is an opinion.  A false opinion.

[One Above All]

I'm flattered you think I'm infallible, but the truth is that I'm not.


Now then, since this thread was split, there's an important thing missing from the OP: all this is relevant to whether atheism is an opinion or not. You said that objective and subjective truths can be processed in the same manner. While I disagree with this, even if I assume it to be correct, how does that apply to atheism?


Assuming it isn't true:
Atheism is a conclusion - the conclusion that there are no deities (even if one isn't sure of that conclusion). One arrives at said conclusion through logic. The problem of evil, omnipotence paradox, omnimax inconsistency, et cetera.
An opinion is not a conclusion. One doesn't think "This shirt's logo looks better than that one because this one is a circle, which is a more 'perfect' shape than that one, which is a scalene triangle. Furthermore (...)". You just look at both shirts and think "This one looks better than that one". You might not even think; you just react to it. There was no conclusive evidence; there was no analysis of the evidence; there was nothing. You look, you like or you dislike.

[Dante]

No? Then your analogy is irrelevant to what I'm talking about.

Then I must be misunderstanding, still, what is your position.

You said:

So when referring to one's thoughts themselves (the "opinion"), it's beside the point to consider whether the thoughts pertain to something that is sujective or objective.  The mental actions are the same.

Bold mine, and I take that to mean that the mental actions for deciding the value of something, whether subjective or objective, are the same thought process.

Is this an incorrect assessment?

[Azdgari]

I'm flattered you think I'm infallible, but the truth is that I'm not.

???

Now then, since this thread was split, there's an important thing missing from the OP: all this is relevant to whether atheism is an opinion or not. You said that objective and subjective truths can be processed in the same manner. While I disagree with this, even if I assume it to be correct, how does that apply to atheism?

1. If someone holds a position on a matter that is subjective, while believing that that matter is objective, then they will process that mentally as thought the matter is objective.  This just logically follows.  If a mind takes item A to be of type X, while it really is of type X, then it will be processed as though it is of type X.  If that mind takes item B to be of type X, while it is really of type Y, then that mine wil still process it as though it is of type X.  Could you indicate your point of disagreement with this reasoning, Luci?

2. This is relevant to whether atheism is an opinion because it negates the relevance of whether the subject matter truly is a matter of opinion.  Atheism is a position.  That position is held by a mind.  A mind can hold positions about anything, subjective or objective.  Why try to distinguish them based on the subjects they refer to in the real world, when that has nothing immediately to do with how the mind is processing them?  It's the mind we're talking about in the first place.

Assuming it isn't true:
Atheism is a conclusion - the conclusion that there are no deities (even if one isn't sure of that conclusion). One arrives at said conclusion through logic. The problem of evil, omnipotence paradox, omnimax inconsistency, et cetera.

One might do so.  One also might not, yet still be of the position that atheism is correct.  You're just declaring this without any kind of evidential or reasoned support.  I wonder why?

An opinion is not a conclusion. One doesn't think "This shirt's logo looks better than that one because this one is a circle, which is a more 'perfect' shape than that one, which is a scalene triangle. Furthermore (...)". You just look at both shirts and think "This one looks better than that one". You might not even think; you just react to it. There was no conclusive evidence; there was no analysis of the evidence; there was nothing. You look, you like or you dislike.

That's a preference.  Preferences are not the only kind of opinion out there.  Some people are of the opinion that Obama is a Kenyan-born Communist.  They are objectively wrong.  So how do you classify their belief?  I'd call it a position, a conclusion, and an opinion.

[Azdgari]

Then I must be misunderstanding, still, what is your position.

Yeah I didn't spell it out very clearly at that point.

Bold mine, and I take that to mean that the mental actions for deciding the value of something, whether subjective or objective, are the same thought process.

Is this an incorrect assessment?

They're not always the same.  I was (not-so-clearly) referring to cases where the person thinks that their opinion refers to objective truth.  It might actually do so, or it might not.  But in either case, the thought process is pretty much the same.

There are also plenty of cases where someone has a position on something and believes it to be a matter of opinion.  Again, this can be true for subject matters that really are objective or subjective.  And in either case, their thought process is going to be similar.

All I'm saying is that it makes no sense to refer to whether something is truly objective or subjective, to say whether someone holds an opinion.  Because the "opinion" is a thought, and it makes much more sense to actually describe the thought when labelling that thought.

[Dante]

1. If someone holds a position on a matter that is subjective, while believing that that matter is objective, then they will process that mentally as thought the matter is objective.  This just logically follows.

Ah. This is the point I was missing in your argument. I no longer disagree.

[jaimehlers]

This is a little confusing to me.  Are you suggesting that someone who mistakenly thinks their opinion is a fact will argue like it is a fact?  In other words, due to their error in logic, they operate on the premise that their opinion is factual and can be proved.

If so, then I'd say yes, people can and have done that.  We see it with religion lots of times.

[Azdgari]

^^ That is definitely part of what I'm saying.

[One Above All]

???

Your smite and your reply inferred that you had assumed my post was a deliberate lie, rather than a simple mistake. This implied (IMO) that you thought I was infallible.[1] In fact, IIRC, you seem to do that often. I wonder why.[2]

1. If someone holds a position on a matter that is subjective, while believing that that matter is objective, then they will process that mentally as thought the matter is objective.
<snip>

I did not see this in your OP. Thanks for clearing that up.

<snip>
Why try to distinguish them based on the subjects they refer to in the real world, when that has nothing immediately to do with how the mind is processing them?

"Opinion" has some connotations that I prefer to avoid. Some people think that all opinions are equally valid, when they are not. Having two or more words for two things which are remarkably similar also leads to misunderstandings. Reinterpreting them was necessary.

One might do so.  One also might not, yet still be of the position that atheism is correct.  You're just declaring this without any kind of evidential or reasoned support.  I wonder why?

If you are not of the opinion that atheism requires actually considering theism[3], then this part was moot.

That's a preference.  Preferences are not the only kind of opinion out there.  Some people are of the opinion that Obama is a Kenyan-born Communist.  They are objectively wrong.  So how do you classify their belief?  I'd call it a position, a conclusion, and an opinion.

A position and a conclusion, but not an opinion.

1.	Hyperbole. I was actually trying to make a subtle point.
2.	I mean that literally.
3.	I seemed to remember that you are/were.

[Azdgari]

Your smite and your reply inferred that you had assumed my post was a deliberate lie, rather than a simple mistake. This implied (IMO) that you thought I was infallible. In fact, IIRC, you seem to do that often. I wonder why.

Well, you thought I meant X.  I contradicted that.  You re-iterated that I meant X.  That's not plausibly a mistake.  I prefer to give your intellect some credit, and assume you were lying.

I did not see this in your OP. Thanks for clearing that up.

You're welcome.

"Opinion" has some connotations that I prefer to avoid. Some people think that all opinions are equally valid, when they are not. Having two or more words for two things which are remarkably similar also leads to misunderstandings. Reinterpreting them was necessary.

Okay, I agree...but the thing under discussion for labelling is still the thought itself.  You can't easily get around that part.

If you are not of the opinion that atheism requires actually considering theism, then this part was moot.

Of course it requires considering theism.  But that's not all of what you said.  You also said this:

One arrives at said conclusion through logic. The problem of evil, omnipotence paradox, omnimax inconsistency, et cetera.

To which I replied that one might, or one might not.  Someone might become an atheist because the theists he or she has encountered in his or her life were total jerks.  That would be an irrational reason to be atheistic, but the person would still be an atheist by virtue of not believing in the existence of deities.  You made a very broad claim, and I'm curious as to what evidence went into it.

A position and a conclusion, but not an opinion.

Because you refuse to actually describe the person's thought when labelling that person's thought.

[One Above All]

Well, you thought I meant X.  I contradicted that.  You re-iterated that I meant X.  That's not plausibly a mistake.

Not plausible because you don't know what I'm doing at the moment.
Right now I'm playing an RTS while trying to come up with the second part of a story I'm writing, as well as thinking about possible counterarguments to my arguments and counterarguments to those counterarguments.
Plausible enough for you?

I prefer to give your intellect some credit, and assume you were lying.

I don't lie (anymore). What you consider crediting my intellect is nothing of the sort.

Okay, I agree...but the thing under discussion for labelling is still the thought itself.  You can't easily get around that part.

As you said, if one does not consider one's opinions as subjective, then the thought process will be the same. I thought I had conceded this already.

Of course it requires considering theism.

I'm not gonna hold you to that simply because this is a matter of defining "atheism".

To which I replied that one might, or one might not.  Someone might become an atheist because the theists he or she has encountered in his or her life were total jerks.  That would be an irrational reason to be atheistic, but the person would still be an atheist by virtue of not believing in the existence of deities.  You made a very broad claim, and I'm curious as to what evidence went into it.

What you said is not considering theism. It's considering theists. Enormous difference there. To consider theism one must actually posit the existence of a deity, and subsequently concluding that at least one exists or not.

[Azdgari]

Plausible enough for you?

Okay, then could you please hold off 'til later...? 

I don't lie (anymore). What you consider crediting my intellect is nothing of the sort.

I was crediting your intellect with having capacities beyond that of someone who's simultaneously playing an RTS game.

As you said, if one does not consider one's opinions as subjective, then the thought process will be the same. I thought I had conceded this already.

Uhh yeah...care to address the issue I brought up, then?  It's the same one I ended my post with, and that you also didn't respond to there.

What you said is not considering theism. It's considering theists. Enormous difference there. To consider theism one must actually posit the existence of a deity, and subsequently concluding that at least one exists or not.

Uhh, yes it is.  Question:  Do gods exist?  Factor:  The people who say they do are dishonest asswipes.  Conclusion:  No, gods do not exist.

Not logical, but still a (poorly-) considered conclusion that gods do not exist.  Stop trying to paint atheism as some sort of superior species of human.

[One Above All]

Okay, then could you please hold off 'til later...? 

That wouldn't be any fun.

I was crediting your intellect with having capacities beyond that of someone who's simultaneously playing an RTS game.

You consider it crediting. I don't.

Uhh yeah...care to address the issue I brought up, then?  It's the same on I ended my post with, and that you also didn't respond to there.

What issue did I fail to address? I conceded that you were correct, if we assume the person considers their opinion to be objectively true. The only issue left to address is below.

Uhh, yes it is.  Question:  Do gods exist?  Factor:  The people who say they do are dishonest asswipes.  Conclusion:  No, gods do not exist.

Not logical, but still a (poorly-) considered conclusion that gods do not exist.

That's my point - if it's not logical, then one hasn't actually considered theism. That's like saying that creating a strawman is actually considering the other person's argument.

Stop trying to paint atheism as some sort of superior species of human.

Now that's quite an assertion. Care to support it?

[Azdgari]

My main point to you:

... you refuse to actually describe the person's thought when labelling that person's thought.

This is very counter-intuitive.  Is it worth the benefits you seek?

That's my point - if it's not logical, then one hasn't actually considered theism. That's like saying that creating a strawman is actually considering the other person's argument.

Whether it counts as "true consideration" is not something we can debate reasonably; it really is a matter of opinion, as far as I can tell.  What is clear, though, is that to you, a disbelief in gods alone is not atheism.  That's a stretch from the usually-accepted definitions I've seen on here.

Stop trying to paint atheism as some sort of superior species of human.

Now that's quite an assertion. Care to support it?

Hyperbole.  My point is that you are trying to define "atheist" as someone who not only rejects theistic claims, but who also has a certain rational mindset.  What other positive attributes do you wish to apply to "atheism" that would make it more positive and more exclusive?  Heck, you could make a whole religion called "atheism" if you wanted to!  Just keep doing what you're doing.


EDIT:  Seriously?  THIS is my 10,000th post?  God damnit.

[One Above All]

... you refuse to actually describe the person's thought when labelling that person's thought.

I do not see it as counter-intuitive. Why would it be counter-intuitive? Also, I don't "refuse" to describe them. I merely see them as irrelevant in some cases. This would be one of them.

Whether it counts as "true consideration" is not something we can debate reasonably; it really is a matter of opinion, as far as I can tell.  What is clear, though, is that to you, a disbelief in gods alone is not atheism.  That's a stretch from the usually-accepted definitions I've seen on here.

Uh... No. If you read some of my older posts in this very thread, you'll see that it's implied that I do not accept that definition. If you read some of my older posts in other threads, you'll see that I do consider disbelief in deities to be atheism, even if one has no concept of what a deity is[1] or if one's thoughts are riddled with fallacies.

Hyperbole.  My point is that you are trying to define "atheist" as someone who not only rejects theistic claims, but who also has a certain rational mindset.

No. I am trying to define what it means to consider a claim. Atheism to me is no more than a lack of belief in deities.

1.	Newborn babies.

[Azdgari]

I do not see it as counter-intuitive. Why would it be counter-intuitive? Also, I don't "refuse" to describe them. I merely see them as irrelevant in some cases. This would be one of them.

Okay.  M|aybe you don't find labelling X according to parameters that have nothing to do with X to be counter-intuitive, but I do, and I'm sure I'm not alone in that.

Uh... No. If you read some of my older posts in this very thread, you'll see that it's implied that I do not accept that definition.

Eh?  I stated no definition.  Put down the game for a second and read.

If you read some of my older posts in other threads, you'll see that I do consider disbelief in deities to be atheism, even if one has no concept of what a deity is or if one's thoughts are riddled with fallacies.

Then you are directly contradicting yourself.  Here in this thread you are claiming that one is not an atheist unless one has reached that conclusion through logically considering theism.  Yet previously, as you point out, you claimed (as have I) that one is an atheist by virtue of lacking god-belief, even if it's merely out of ignorance of the concepts of gods.  So which is it?

No. I am trying to define what it means to consider a claim. Atheism to me is no more than a lack of belief in deities.

O'RLY? ...

Atheism is a conclusion - the conclusion that there are no deities (even if one isn't sure of that conclusion). One arrives at said conclusion through logic. The problem of evil, omnipotence paradox, omnimax inconsistency, et cetera.

 

[Graybeard]

I never said it was a matter of opinion.  It's objectively true or false.  But that doesn't necessarily impact one's thought process on the subject.  A matter of opinion and a matter of objective reality can both be processed in the same manner intellectually (whether they should or not).  So when referring to one's thoughts themselves (the "opinion"), it's beside the point to consider whether the thoughts pertain to something that is subjective or objective.  The mental actions are the same.

I am not persuaded that that is so.

An objective concept is held as a whole. We know this because if we think of, say, the wording of the Fifth Amendment, we know if we have it correct or not.

If, however, we try to explain a subjective concept, we have no such difficulty. We may gloss over contradictions, invent examples, hedge around parts and be vague or emphatic in others. None of this would help us if the concept were objective.

In subjectivity, our thoughts go to the defence of our position and the impact the statement will make.

In objectivity, our thoughts go to accurate recall.

The only similarity I can see, off hand, is that in both we may be aware of inaccuracy.

Some people are of the opinion that Obama is a Kenyan-born Communist.  They are objectively wrong.  So how do you classify their belief?  I'd call it a position, a conclusion, and an opinion.

“delusion” [dih-loo-zhuhn] (noun) = the incorrect assessment of a correct perception; a belief held in the face of evidence to the contrary, that is resistant to all reason.

They have managed to hear both for and against but feel compelled to misinterpret. See how similar this is to subjectivity?

[One Above All]

Okay.  M|aybe you don't find labelling X according to parameters that have nothing to do with X to be counter-intuitive, but I do, and I'm sure I'm not alone in that.

You said that I "refused" to describe a person's thoughts when labeling said thoughts. How the hell does that relate to "labeling X according to parameters that have nothing to do with X"?

Eh?  I stated no definition.  Put down the game for a second and read.

Sorry, I wrote "accept" when I should've written "reject".

<snip>
Here in this thread you are claiming that one is not an atheist unless one has reached that conclusion through logically considering theism.
<snip>

As I explained before, I seemed to recall that you considered that one wasn't actually an atheist unless one had, as you say here, logically considered theism. I then addressed the issue and even said that my point was moot if my recollection was faulty.

[Azdgari]

An objective concept is held as a whole. We know this because if we think of, say, the wording of the Fifth Amendment – we know if we have it correct or not.

If, however, we try to explain a subjective concept, we have no such difficulty. We may gloss over contradictions, invent examples, hedge around parts and be vague or emphatic in others. None of this would help us if the concept were objective.

It would until someone checked.  It would if everyone involved was mistaken.  It would, basically, until objective reality intervened.  On some topics, that might not happen for quite some time, if ever.

In subjectivity, our thoughts go to the defence of our position and the impact the statement will make.

In objectivity, our thoughts go to accurate recall.

Are you describing matters of objective-vs-subjective subject matters, or of objective-vs-subjective intellectual behaviour?  Because I am referring to the former; the latter is off-topic.

“delusion” [dih-loo-zhuhn] (noun) = the incorrect assessment of a correct perception; a belief held in the face of evidence to the contrary, that is resistant to all reason.

Yes, it is also a delusion.  It's also a political issue.  It's also racially motivated.  We weren't discussing any of those aspects.  They are all off-topic to the discussion.

They have managed to hear both for and against but feel compelled to misinterpret. See how similar this is to subjectivity?

Depends on what you mean by "subjectivity".  You might want to make sure you've read the same thread before posting.

[Azdgari]

How did you go from this...to that?

That is the opposite order from that in which they occurred.  I'm not sure what you're asking here.

Sorry, I wrote "accept" when I should've written "reject".

Yeah, that sort of thing can cause confusion...

As I explained before, I seemed to recall that you considered that one wasn't actually an atheist unless one had, as you say here, logically considered theism. I then addressed the issue and even said that my point was moot if my recollection was faulty.

No, that's not what happened.  Here is the post in question, broken up into two parts for analysis:

I'm flattered you think I'm infallible, but the truth is that I'm not.


Now then, since this thread was split, there's an important thing missing from the OP: all this is relevant to whether atheism is an opinion or not. You said that objective and subjective truths can be processed in the same manner. While I disagree with this, even if I assume it to be correct, how does that apply to atheism?

Now, to be clear, here we have...
Red:  My claim.
Green:  You disagreeing with my claim.
Blue:  You assuming my position is true momentarily for the sake of argument.

Then, we have...

Assuming it isn't true:
Atheism is a conclusion - the conclusion that there are no deities (even if one isn't sure of that conclusion). One arrives at said conclusion through logic. The problem of evil, omnipotence paradox, omnimax inconsistency, et cetera.
An opinion is not a conclusion. One doesn't think "This shirt's logo looks better than that one because this one is a circle, which is a more 'perfect' shape than that one, which is a scalene triangle. Furthermore (...)". You just look at both shirts and think "This one looks better than that one". You might not even think; you just react to it. There was no conclusive evidence; there was no analysis of the evidence; there was nothing. You look, you like or you dislike.

Blue:  You stating that you are now ceasing to assume my position is true for the sake of argument, and then...
Green:  Continuing on to state your position.

See how this doesn't line up with what you're now claiming?

[One Above All]

Assuming you were talking about the first part, (hopefully) I've fixed it.

[Azdgari]

^^ Thanks.  I'll respond to that here:

You said that I "refused" to describe a person's thoughts when labeling said thoughts. How the hell does that relate to "labeling X according to parameters that have nothing to do with X"?

X = peoples' thoughts.
Parameters that have nothing to do with X = Whether the things people have positions on are actually subjective or objective topics.
Refusing to describe a person's thoughts when labelling said thoughts = refusing to describe X when labelling X, instead describing the parameters that have nothing to do with X.

Make more sense now?

[Graybeard]

An objective concept is held as a whole. We know this because if we think of, say, the wording of the Fifth Amendment – we know if we have it correct or not.

If, however, we try to explain a subjective concept, we have no such difficulty. We may gloss over contradictions, invent examples, hedge around parts and be vague or emphatic in others. None of this would help us if the concept were objective.

It would until someone checked.

That is simply wrong.

It would if everyone involved was mistaken.

that is simultaneously meaningless and wrong. How objective is an error? Errors are the thing that exists in your mind as opposed to in reality - errors are subjective and we are speaking of objectivity.

It would, basically, until objective reality intervened.

As it was objective reality in the first place – I do not understand what you are saying.

In subjectivity, our thoughts go to the defence of our position and the impact the statement will make.

In objectivity, our thoughts go to accurate recall.

Are you describing matters of objective-vs-subjective subject matters, or of objective-vs-subjective intellectual behaviour?  Because I am referring to the former; the latter is off-topic.

I am telling you what I thought of your idea that thought processes in subjective matters and objective matters are the same – they are not.

“delusion” [dih-loo-zhuhn] (noun) = the incorrect assessment of a correct perception; a belief held in the face of evidence to the contrary, that is resistant to all reason.

Yes, it is also a delusion.  It's also a political issue.  It's also racially motivated.  We weren't discussing any of those aspects.  They are all off-topic to the discussion.

Then you will be able to explain why you asked,

Some people are of the opinion that Obama is a Kenyan-born Communist.  They are objectively wrong.  So how do you classify their belief?  I'd call it a position, a conclusion, and an opinion.

They have managed to hear both for and against but feel compelled to misinterpret. See how similar this is to subjectivity?

Depends on what you mean by "subjectivity".  You might want to make sure you've read the same thread before posting.

I would be interested to know how reading the thread will help me to understand what I mean by subjectivity.
Try this:  The quality or condition of viewing things exclusively through the medium of one's own mind or individuality; the quality or condition of resting upon subjective facts or mental representation; the character of existing in the mind only.

Does that meet with your approval?

[One Above All]

X = peoples' thoughts.
Parameters that have nothing to do with X = Whether the things people have positions on are actually subjective or objective topics.
Refusing to describe a person's thoughts when labelling said thoughts = refusing to describe X when labelling X, instead describing the parameters that have nothing to do with X.

Make more sense now?

It does, but I still don't understand why you think I'm still doing it. I acknowledged that if people think their opinions are objective, then their "process" will be similar to (if not the same as) when they're considering something that's actually objective. If I made the same argument after acknowledging this, then please read the two paragraphs[1] below.

No, that's not what happened.  Here is the post in question, broken up into two parts for analysis:
<snip>
See how this doesn't line up with what you're now claiming?

Yes I do. I was wrong.

FYI: I'm going to sleep now. It's getting late, and my inability to understand Graybeard's[2] latest post post is probably due to sleep deprivation[3].

1.	Note that a paragraph is a "block" of text; it doesn't necessarily need multiple sentences.
2.	This is not a mistake.
3.	I haven't been sleeping very well. Dunno why.