-->
@zedvictor4
All internal
There’s nothing internal about objectivity.
Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?
Posts
Total:
1,638
-->
@Tarik
So where is your source of objectivity?
-->
@zedvictor4
External from myself, yet not in a specific place.
-->
@Tarik
A tad vague perhaps.
Some might refer to such obscure objectivity as an assumption.....Or subjective.
-->
@zedvictor4
A tad vague perhaps.
As is your line of questioning, what do you mean by source of objectivity?
-->
@Tarik
Definitively one can separate objective and subjective reasoning.
But one assumes that they are both internal function and process. (Data in, data out).
But Tarik says that, his source of objectivity is separate from internal function and process....(External and nowhere specific).
So how does Tarik acquire and utilise such data, without sensory perception and conscious analysis.....(Internal process).
-->
@zedvictor4
data out
Last time that I checked out meant external.
But Tarik says that, his source of objectivity is separate from internal function and process
Correction I said
There’s nothing internal about objectivity.
Which is bigger than just me.
-->
@Tarik
You constantly say these things.
But never back it up with an explanation.
So:
Where specifically does your objectivity emanate from?
-->
@zedvictor4
Logic and reason.
-->
@Tarik
And so similarly and notwithstanding variability of output, how do logic and reason differ from any other internal data management process?
-->
@zedvictor4
How do you know theirs another data management external from logic and reason?
-->
@PGA2.0
PGA2.0 263How can it be better if it is subjective? Better in relation to what???[83]Well-being, in whose opinion?[84]Human welfare in whose opinion, the woman who kills her unborn human child? How is that well-being for the unborn?[85] You selectively choose who you will apply wellbeing to. When food is short are you still going to be looking for the wellbeing of your neighbour? Look at the world around you and see how, in practicality or livability, this principle of wellbeing works in most countries of the world, especially socialist and communist atheistic states.[86]Amoranemix 897[83] Your worldview is a serious handicap for understanding reality. In order to understand these things you must open up your worldview to it. [*]It can be better by meeting the definition of better described in the (omitted) standard. Better is a relation. Something is better than something else.[**][84] Dude, ask clear questions.[85] Is that well-being for the unborn ?[86] Look at the world around you and see how, in practicality or livability, God as a source of morility and justice in most countries of the world, especially in religious states.PGA2.0 1051[*] No, you're mistaken.[543] Moral relativism can only go to battle with subjective opinion. Open it up to your relativism?[544] Who are you to tell me what is right and wrong unless you can show me that what you believe is based on an actual fixed reference point?[545] Who do you think you are to dictate from your subjectivism that there is no necessary fixed measure?[546] How do you, as a subjective human being, know this is true?[547] You can't even live by your own system of thought. You are inconsistent. That is a troubling sign in a worldview. A fixed reference point is what is necessary for the understanding of morality. Your system of thought on morality is morally bankrupt.[548] [ . . . ]You have nothing sensical to offer.[549][**] Yes, better is a relationship. To have better, there must be a best to compare better to or else how can you gauge something as better?[550] Yes, something is better than something else only if there is an ideal comparison for that something. What is the ideal for the right and wrong of abortion, since I am referencing a specific better and not just speaking of the concept of better anymore? (This is where you get derailed, the difference between an actual case and the concept in your evaluation of what I am saying)Is it better to murder innocent human beings (ones that have done nothing wrong) if you choose to, or should we protect them and identify murdering them as wrong? How do you determine the moral better in this case? [551][85] Don't try to obfuscate. The question is clear. Who gets to define what well-being is?[552] Don't isolate the context. I gave you a clear example. You are basing morality on opinion, preference. Why is your opinion of well-bing better than mine regarding the unborn and abortion??????????You tell me.[553] I'm asking you a question. Quit evading my questions.[ . . . ] Is it just your opinion to have unequal justice, where you choose how you will apply fairness?[554] For one, you choose to kill it, and for the other, you choose to let it live. If so, your justice system is unlivable, and if the tables were turned and someone applied the same unfair standard to you that you call justice, then you would be dead.[86] The Christian answer: You fail to see the bigger picture. God has given you a will, and you are free to exercise that will for the number of days He has granted you, yet you constantly choose evil. Evil is choosing to go against the good that is God. Thus, without repentance and God's provision for sin, you will, upon death, answer for your sin. We are all accountable to God, and whether we are held accountable in our merit or the merit of another depends on what we believe when we die.
[543] So you baldly assert, but fail to give good reason to believe so. Clearly your method for understanding reality is not working. You ask questions to those who do understand it, the answers you then dismiss because they don't include God, the result being that you remain as ignorant of reality as before.
[544] No, open to to what I said : reality. In practice : reason and evidence, without bias.
Given the contradictions you have been claiming about relativism, I don't know what you are talking about.
So far I have been interpreting your references to Bahnsen's claims about relativism as definition for relativism, making relativism something almost no one believes (which did not prevent you from accusing me of being a relativist). However, you have later been treating those references more as claims than as a definition. Relying on the dictionary definition, understandably some people are relativists.
However, that reduces your references to Bahnsen to bald assertions or an appeal to authority fallacy. Please demonstrate those assertions.
[545] You yet again omitted to mention the reference moral standard to avoid clarity (the skeptic's friend).
I am a skeptic who bases his beliefs on reason and evidence. Relevance ?
[546] Your question assumes without justification that one needs to be someone in particular to teach about reality.
[547] Basically, I gathered evidence and used my brain in the on position. The fact that Christians are unable to demonstrate such necessary, fixed measure, supports my belief.
[548] Are those facts or just your personal opinions ?
[549] You have nothing sensible to offer.
[550] No, better is not a relationship. It is a comparator. In addition, you are mistaken, for no best is required. Better can be gauged, provided a comparison is available, by using the pertinent quality standard.
[551] You are again omitting the context required for answering your questions to avoid clarity (the skeptic's friend). Better according to what standard of quality ?
Murder is wrong by definition. Manslaughter that is not wrong is not murder. Doing what is wrong is worse than not doing what is wrong.
[85] Your question was loaded. You assumed without justification that killing the unborn is well-being for the unborn. Assumptions must be demonstrated. Go ahead!
I addressed your clear example, so don't pretend I didn't.
A problem with that question (and many of your questions) is that it does not appear relevant. If an answer is given you will likely respond with your usual bald assertions, questions and fallacies, which do not allow to validly conclude anything relevant, other than that you don't have a case.
[552] Who gets to decide what beauty is ? Who gets to decide what the rules of chess are ? Who gets to decide what a planet is ? Who gets to decide what the speed of something is ?
I am assuming that the context, that you omitted to provide, is that it has been decided that it must be decided what constitues well-being of foetusses and that I for some strange reason am to decide who will take that decision. Well, I would propose that a commission would be created consisting of experts. I have not investigated who those experts should be, but very likely I would put scientists of relevent scientific fields and moral philosophers in there.
Relevance ?
The point of my 'who gets to decide what' questions is to point out that the difficulties associated with your type of questions are not limited to areas where you see God's influence.
Your follow-up question is another loaded question fallacy.
[553] No. Killing an unborn generally reduces its well-being.
Your follow-up questions are again plagued with problems. If there is something relevant there that is not fallacious and that I have not addressed yet, please point it out to me.
[554] You are being hypocritical. Your God's justice is only egalitarian (with the exception of self-favouritism) because he decides who is guilty and innocent. The women (or anyone promoting abortion) could easily decide that the unborn are guilty to have an excuse for getting rid of them. However, they rarely go that low.
Also, you are ASSUMING that I am promoting abortion. Your assumptions and reality differ. That is part of what makes your worldview fictional.
[86] Ignoring the fact that the veracity of Christian answer is debatable, it is cleary not working, as reality ([86] in post 897) demonstrates. One would expect better from an omnipotent, omniscient god.
Moreover, this is another distraction. This thread is not about the practical livability of a worldview, but of its truth.
Amoranemix 897Cool. Now I can quote you saying “I don't know”, totally out of context and completely misrepresenting what you meant. Just the way you like it.PGA2.0 1052I don't know the cause of the 19 million miscarriages other than indirectly, the Fall, and I don't know how many suns there are in the universe, but I know they display the power and glory of God.
If a neonazi were to say that the 12 million casualties of the holocaust display the power and glory of Adolf Hitler, would that also sound misplaced ?
PGA2.0 273So you live inconsistently with what you know as true - you live a lie, you deceive yourself.Amoranemix 897So do you, but your belief in the lie is stronger. You know the lie to be true.PGA2.0 1052Who are you to tell me what is a lie regarding God?[555] How reasonable are you being?[556] Do you want to argue against the Christian God specifically?[557] That is the only God I believe in. Do you want to examine the reasonableness of your evidence as opposed to mine?[558] I like to start with prophecy and its reasonableness. We can have a formal debate on that subject if you like. [559]
[555] I am a reality-believer. Who are you to tell people what is a lie about the meaning people give ?
[556] Very reasonable.
[557] No.
[558] No thanks. I prefer to stay on topic.
[559] In our debate on debate.org you tried to give me the burden of proof, which would be preposterous. Now you have mitigated your proposal. I am not particularly interested in prophecy and you probably know 50 times more about it than I do. You will likely attempt to use that advantage for deception. I want guarantees that such will not succeed.
-->
@Tarik
Theirs or there's?
Though a separate external process was your proposition.
-->
@zedvictor4
Separate from what?
-->
@Tarik
You tell me.
You're the one separating objectivity from basic function and process.
-->
@zedvictor4
No, I’m saying that logic and reason is the ONLY data management process.
-->
@Tarik
External from myself, but not in a specific place.
This is what you stated.
-->
@zedvictor4
As defined....Influenced by personal tastes, feelings or opinions.
You do realize objective has a completely opposite definition, so I’m not so keen that you
understand the semantic differentiation
Like you say you do.
-->
@Tarik
Definition is.
But definition is arrived at.
Arriving at any decision demands the input, process and output of data....Even reading a dictionary.
You only know what is written in a dictionary because you are able to internally process the written data.
Therefore irrespective of content, all output is personal, and so by definition all output is subjective.
-->
@zedvictor4
Therefore irrespective of content
No not irrespective of content, content matters especially when your comparing two things that are polar opposites.
-->
@Tarik
Content is just a derivative of a database.
"Polar opposites" is just an example thereof.
All input and output relies upon an internal process.
Your output is ultimately your decision, therefore always subjective, irrespective of how the content might be subsequently judged.
-->
@zedvictor4
But not everything in life is predicated on ones decisions, so what do you call those things because they’re damn sure not subjective.
-->
@Tarik
Everything in ones life is predicated on ones decisions....Or more precisely, on how one processes data.
Stating a fact is repetition... Nonetheless, repeating said fact is reliant upon internally processing the data, and deciding upon a response.
Therefore your decision will always be a subjective process....Based on or influenced by personal feelings. Oxford Dictionaries.
Everything that you input, process and output is personal.
-->
@zedvictor4
Everything in ones life is predicated on ones decisions....Or more precisely, on how one processes data.
How one processes data wasn’t my argument, my argument is was in regards to the facts of the world irrespective of how one processes it.
-->
@Tarik
Reality is reality....And facts are facts.
We perceive, determine and conclude facts only by internally processing data.
For you and I to be aware of and utilise factual data, we must personally input and process said data.
In a World without consciousness, everything would be meaningless.
-->
@zedvictor4
Reality is reality....And facts are facts.
Which is true regardless of perception, so perception is irrelevant.
-->
@Tarik
HOW DO YOU PERSONALLY DETERMINE "TRUTH" FROM "LIES" AND OR "FACT" FROM "OPINION" ?
-->
@3RU7AL
What part of perception is irrelevant don’t you understand?
-->
@Tarik
What part of perception is irrelevant don’t you understand?
THE PART WHERE YOU POKE OUT YOUR EYES AND PIERCE YOUR EARDRUMS
-->
@Tarik
Perception is irrelevant.
Perception is everything.
No perception...Nothing....Zero....No reality......No available facts.