How atheists"debate" religion

That's all still inside one's head. 

Knowledge is subjective--repetitive, I know . Why would one then suggest that "it all be blown up" because its subjective? 

Yes, this is what we refer to as “thinking”. It’s kind of how we form all of our beliefs about everything

Calling it subjective is blowing it up.

The point of the nuclear method is to get rid of the concept of right vs wrong when assessing statements about reality, thereby allowing the individual to believe anything they want.

Arguing that anything we consider to be knowledge is subject to nothing more than value driven standards accomplishes exactly that.

What’s nonsensical about this is that in order to know anything the individual must first believe they are right, so the person who calls knowledge subjective can no longer claim knowledge to anything.

What is the issue with this? Individuals can believe whatever they want.

And "right" and "wrong" are assessments reflecting one's values.

It accomplishes removing the presumption of the indisputable.

This makes no sense. I'm not claiming to be "objective" about this. Furthermore, objectivity does not apply in statements about knowledge.

We’re not talking about the limits of human capability. That should have been obvious. Of course individuals can believe whatever they want... what do you mean what’s the issue with this? This is the issue.

I don’t understand why I need to explain this but clearly I do; in order for us to function as a civilization we have to share a common sense of reality so that we can solve our problems and advance our interests. The “nuclear method” is problematic because it seeks to undermine the very foundation that all of us sit on in our efforts to achieve that common sense of reality. In other words, it’s selfishly destructive.

This is why I think when I told you that you were advocating the nuclear method you denied it.

Seems to me

Exactly. So when someone says the earth is flat, to say they’re wrong is to merely assert values.

According to this kind of warped thinking

we could never make progress on a disagreement because all it boils down to is our opinion.

We might as well debate whether chocolate is better than strawberry.

It’s absurd, and we would never prosper as a society by adopting this kind of thinking.

That’s not a good thing. The concept of the indisputable is what, for example, holds democracies together. Once upon a time the guy who received more votes was indisputably the president. But now because we have had a president who saw the opening that you are trying to pry open, we live in a society where nearly half the population lives in a delusion that he really won, so instead of solving our problems were now in a war over reality itself.

To claim knowledge about something is to claim that you are right about that something. i.e. “I am right that the earth is round”. But your own value driven standards do not allow for you to be right because if knowledge is all subjective the there is no such thing as right.

Nope--not even remotely true. The intention behind my statements was not to "blow up all knowledge" and claim that the atheist's argument is "as bad as" the theist's argument.

You are now alleging that commonality in the rationalization of reality is mutually exclusive from the subjectivity of knowledge.

I understand that "objectivity" is irrational; Knowledge is rational; therefore, knowledge cannot be objective.

I feel the need to remind you what this conversation is about.

After equivocating the theists belief in god with the atheists use of logic on the basis that both are “inside their heads”,

If you had just said “yes I am” this conversation would have been over a long time ago

Instead you continue to argue point by point every piece of it while claiming it’s not what you’re doing.

Of course people have their own biases. Of course those biases will always be applied to anything that one believes.

But if you do not accept the concepts of reality itself

and the validity of logic (the foundations of knowledge) as objective

then you are not worth having a conversation with

Complete strawman. I was explaining the why it matters, not the what. And I needed to do that because you went the semantic route implying that I don’t understand that we have the capability to believe whatever we want.

Let’s try this, give me an example of one thing that you know to be objectively true. 

How is your perception of reality distinct from your conception of reality? If as you mentioned above, everyone has their own biases, and said biases will be applied to all that which one believes, then how does the concept of reality escape bias?

And by the way (given that this complaint is levied to the point of vexation) all arguments are semantic. All arguments outside of mathematics use words and terms. Those words and terms and the syntax their arrangement forms reflect the intentions and meanings of the argument's author. If you don't intend on "arguing semantics," you might as well not argue.

give me an example of one thing that you know to be objectively true. 

Objectivity is irrational.

Despite being written out of large parts of history, atheists thrived in the polytheistic societies of the ancient world – raising considerable doubts about whether humans really are “wired” for religion – a new study suggests.

The claim is the central proposition of a new book by Tim Whitmarsh, Professor of Greek Culture and a Fellow of St John’s College, University of Cambridge. In it, he suggests that atheism – which is typically seen as a modern phenomenon – was not just common in ancient Greece and pre-Christian Rome, but probably flourished more in those societies than in most civilisations since.

As a result, the study challenges two assumptions that prop up current debates between atheists and believers: Firstly, the idea that atheism is a modern point of view, and second, the idea of “religious universalism” – that humans are naturally predisposed, or “wired”, to believe in gods.

The book, entitled Battling The Gods,  launched in Cambridge on February 16, 2016.

“We tend to see atheism as an idea that has only recently emerged in secular Western societies,” Whitmarsh said. “The rhetoric used to describe it is hyper-modern. In fact, early societies were far more capable than many since of containing atheism within the spectrum of what they considered normal.”

“Rather than making judgements based on scientific reason, these early atheists were making what seem to be universal objections about the paradoxical nature of religion – the fact that it asks you to accept things that aren’t intuitively there in your world. The fact that this was happening thousands of years ago suggests that forms of disbelief can exist in all cultures, and probably always have.”

This goes along with my theory that people who saw and heard gods speaking to them had numerous brain lesions.

What explains the 2500 gods Man has had?

Congratulations, you’ve discovered the problem of infinite regress.

The term semantics has an actual meaning, and that meaning is not “to argue”. How many times are you going to perfectly demonstrate the nuclear method while claiming you are not using it?

Point proven yet again.

You have proven nothing. I've explicitly explained the reason objectivity is irrational.

so when I challenge [atheists] to substantiate that their arguments or their empirical observations extend beyond the notions on which they premise them, they can't.

You seem to have forgotten what this is about and how we got here.

This is about your criticism of atheists and why it is meaningless.

But your “challenge” is nothing more than an appeal to infinite regress.

Ultimately, we all have to rely on our own senses and reasoning to form conclusions. So what?

That does not equate a theist believing in something without evidence to an atheist rejecting a claim because there is no evidence.

You’ll probably respond by claiming you weren’t equating the two

and if so I ask, then what is your point?

The distinction between these positions is inextricably and inescapably one of value.

So what? Why should anyone care that it comes down to a distinction of values?

What is your point?

My point is, levying the criticism that one's stance, belief, position, affirmation, and the like are based on that which is "insides one head" is not a consistent counterpoint, especially considering that the premises on which atheists base their stance, belief, position, affirmation, and the like are also based on that which is "inside their heads." The distinction between these positions is inextricably and inescapably one of value. This however has not sufficed for you since your contention operates on the assumption of objectivity, which I've already explained is irrational.

The reason it does not suffice to me is because you continue to argue that you are not equating these things as you are equating them.

I never claimed the capacity to "solve" solipsism. I pointed out the hypocrisy in rejecting God because he is allegedly based on a conception borne from "inside one's head" when the very standards which inform one's  rejection is based on conceptions borne "inside one's head." Now you can argue that there's no "equivalence" between the former and the latter, but that does not changed that these are still value-based.

And once again, the equivalence I drew did not, and does not extend beyond the fact that both are inside one's head.

Values are arbitrary

and subjective

so arguing that believing in something without evidence, and rejecting a claim because there is no evidence are both merely products of our values

serves no purpose other than to equate the two as just one person’s values against  another.

In other words... the nuclear method.

This conclusion is rendered through the presumption that these debates and discussion have extended or can extend beyond/outside of conflicts of value statements.

No, it’s rendered through the conclusion that the point you keep making serves no purpose other than to equate belief without evidence to withholding belief in the absence of evidence, and you claim that’s not what you’re doing but your argument is that the latter cannot criticize the former because both are “inside their heads”

And once again, the equivalence I drew did not, and does not extend beyond the fact that both are inside one's head.

Knowledge is subjective--repetitive, I know . Why would one then suggest that "it all be blown up" because its subjective? One could still criticize the opinions of another on the grounds of his or her own values.

Pointing to the commonality between the two as a means of portraying them on equal footing is literally what it means to equate.

And once again, the equivalence I drew did not, and does not extend beyond the fact that both are inside one's head.

So to respond by essentially arguing “well reason is just your value” is absurd. No shit it’s my value and not yours, that’s the entire point of me telling you it’s inside your head.

A typical atheist argument is rather simplistic. It's easy to reduce and deconstruct. I have to neither guess at nor change its meaning. For example, why would one require evidence in accordance to the standards you've endorsed? To inform a notion's consistency with assumptions of that which lies outside one's head? That's all still inside one's head.

But stop trying to obfuscate by talking about whether objectivity is ultimately rational or whether it’s possible to arrive at a conclusion without value driven  bias. All of that is well beyond the point.

Knowledge is subjective--repetitive, I know . Why would one then suggest that "it all be blown up" because its subjective?

Calling it subjective is blowing it up. The point of the nuclear method is to get rid of the concept of right vs wrong when assessing statements about reality, thereby allowing the individual to believe anything they want. Arguing that anything we consider to be knowledge is subject to nothing more than value driven standards accomplishes exactly that.

No shit it’s my value and not yours, that’s the entire point of me telling you it’s inside your head. If you take issue with that then change it, if you don’t then own it.

No, they're stating that your standards of evaluation are different and/or undermine my standards of evaluation according to my standards of evaluation. The standards you accept are based on your values.

But stop trying to obfuscate by talking about whether objectivity is ultimately rational or whether it’s possible to arrive at a conclusion without value driven  bias. All of that is well beyond the point.

Calling it subjective is blowing it up. The point of the nuclear method is to get rid of the concept of right vs wrong when assessing statements about reality, thereby allowing the individual to believe anything they want. Arguing that anything we consider to be knowledge is subject to nothing more than value driven standards accomplishes exactly that.

This is the Bible's explanation of rainbows. Of course we now know that rainbows are a prismatic effect of raindrops.

The fact is, God had nothing to do with the creation of the universe

in the same way that God has nothing to do with the sun rising or rainbows appearing

Science does not have a complete explanation for the universe's creation, yet.

While it is true that science does not yet know everything there is to know about the universe, scientists will eventually figure it out.

When they do, what they will find is that nature created the universe, not an imaginary being.

You:

No, it’s rendered through the conclusion that the point you keep making serves no purpose other than to equate belief without evidence to withholding belief in the absence of evidence, and you claim that’s not what you’re doing but your argument is that the latter cannot criticize the former because both are “inside their heads”

I:

And once again, the equivalence I drew did not, and does not extend beyond the fact that both are inside one's head.

You've already conceded that the conclusions atheists render are value-based.

So validate your premise: rationalize objectivity.

You’re the guy who responds to someone saying the earth is round by saying “no, it’s an oblate spheroid” then when people react with annoyance, spend the next hour justifying your response by explaining how it *is* an oblate spheroid

Yes, thinking occurs inside our heads. Congratulations. I was trying to give you credit for having a greater point that you thought meaningful in your conversation with atheists but apparently that really is all there was to it.

I conceded that conclusions are value based, because that is what follows when we accept the very concept of logic as a value.

Engagement in any type of rational conversation presupposes that both parties value logic, so calling someone’s conclusions value-based is meaningless

and I also find it to be intellectually dishonest because it purports to to do something (raising the level of the conversation) that it’s not

But that last part of course assumes that there is a point to making this statement, which apparently is not always the case.

You’re the guy who responds to someone saying the earth is round by saying “no, it’s an oblate spheroid” then when people react with annoyance, spend the next hour justifying your response by explaining how it *is* an oblate spheroid

This isn’t my premise

I haven’t responded to it because it’s an absurd ask.

You don’t rationalize a category, you rationalize whether something belongs in that category.

2+2=4 is objective. That means that I have assessed it’s truth value as not subject to opinion. I used logic to arrive at that assessment because that is the only way this can be done. When we talk about objectivity, this is what we’re talking about. The fact that this  process takes place inside my head does not negate the fact that there is a big difference between this, and the problem of someone believing  things without evidence.

Your criticism of atheists being inconsistent is just plain wrong

because you are ignoring that difference in order to point to the similarity

That’s dishonest, which is and has been my point from the start.

And, you used an inept example. "2+2=4" is NOT objective. Not even in the slightest. Mathematics, and by extension arithmetic, is abstract. Numbers are abstract. They are neither found in nature, nor independent of qualia. It's akin to stating: red + blue = purple. Numbers are assigned forms. 

If you have this number of penguins x x and they meet this number of penguins x x  them there will be this many penguins x x x x.

That x x is demoted as 2, and x x x x is demoted as 4 is not abstract, but semantics. The physical quantity they are expressing is still a physical quantity; with no amount of abstract silliness will ever allow you to successfully make

x x x x x out of adding x x and x x.

While mathematical operations often get abstract, like a Laplace transform, mathematics is inherently falls down to a descriptive system of the physical world that may differ in representation (such as symbols used, or numeric base), but isn’t able to manifestly change what is being described.

The word of digits of pi, or prime numbers are a mathematical description of an aspect of the physical world; and any two individuals from any two cultures, including aliens could independently deduce then value of Pi, or the first 100 prime numbers and convey that information to the other.

In that respect, mathematics is absolutely objective.

You have nothing left to argue.

That is a lie. Your point from the start was to insinuate that the suggestion of knowledge as subjective was identical to "blowing it all up"

"2+2=4" is NOT objective. Not even in the slightest.

An argument, by definition, utilizes logic. So when one claims logic is a value, and then criticizes another’s argument as “values based”, you’re right, there’s nothing left that person can possibly argue. This is what is called the nuclear method.

Aka the nuclear method.  The reason why this is a problem is because it is dishonest. No lie there. It’s been the point since the start.

I don’t understand why I need to explain this but clearly I do; in order for us to function as a civilization we have to share a common sense of reality so that we can solve our problems and advance our interests. The “nuclear method” is problematic because it seeks to undermine the very foundation that all of us sit on in our efforts to achieve that common sense of reality. In other words, it’s selfishly destructive.

Exactly. So when someone says the earth is flat, to say they’re wrong is to merely assert values. According to this kind of warped thinking we could never make progress on a disagreement because all it boils down to is our opinion. We might as well debate whether chocolate is better than strawberry.

It’s absurd, and we would never prosper as a society by adopting this kind of thinking.

It accomplishes removing the presumption of the indisputable.

That’s not a good thing. The concept of the indisputable is what, for example, holds democracies together. Once upon a time the guy who received more votes was indisputably the president. But now because we have had a president who saw the opening that you are trying to pry open, we live in a society where nearly half the population lives in a delusion that he really won, so instead of solving our problems were now in a war over reality itself.

To claim knowledge about something is to claim that you are right about that something. i.e. “I am right that the earth is round”. But your own value driven standards do not allow for you to be right because if knowledge is all subjective the there is no such thing as right.

It’s literally the prime example of an objective statement.

This is the point where one normally realizes the depths the logical hole they’ve dug themselves into so I’m just going to leave it there.

You need not explain to me Mathematics. I know what it is. And what you've described does not inform objectivity; what you've described informs logic. 

That is, "abstract silliness" does not "allow" one to derive xxxxx out of adding xx and xx because xx +xx = xxxx is logically necessary (not objective = independent of qualia.) One could attempt to derive the number five from adding two and two, but that would be inconsistent with the abstract's logic. It would be inconsistent with the accepted standard. And as I informed DoubleR, objectivity =/= consensus. 

If this standard is overhauled, then it's very possible that 2+2=5. Because numbers are just forms.