-->
@zedvictor4
That’s not true, it’s only just that, no perception.
Morality - Is Atheism More Reasonable than Theism?
Posts
Total:
1,638
-->
@Tarik
What do you mean?
For us to communicate, we firstly have to be able to perceive....Input, and then process and output data.
-->
@zedvictor4
Reality is reality....And facts are facts.
This is true regardless of one’s ability to communicate.
-->
@Tarik
Typical Tarik.
It is also true that there are potatoes, regardless of cabbages.
Though, without your ability to perceive and communicate, you would have no facts.
As an insentient blob you might or might not, be aware of your own reality.
You would have to ask an insentient blob though......And therein lies the problem.
-->
@zedvictor4
Though, without your ability to perceive and communicate, you would have no facts.
Not true, facts existence isn’t predicated on our ability to communicate them.
-->
@Tarik
So currently, what other knowledge of facts is there other than human knowledge?
For sure, communication isn't vital, though communication obviously assists the spread and advancement of knowledge.
What you are actually saying is:
Things are, irrespective of a viewer.
And I agree.
But it is only a viewer that can attribute things with factuality.
No viewer....Things...But no facts.
-->
@zedvictor4
Things are, irrespective of a viewer.
No viewer....Things...But no facts.
These two quotes are mutually exclusive.
-->
@Tarik
is objective morality distinct from morality?I wouldn’t say so.It seems absurd to me that we should think chocolate ice cream is not really ice cream...or that any 'flavor' of morality is not morality.I agree.
I graciously accept your concession.
-->
@Ramshutu
What did I concede to?
-->
@Tarik
These quotes are logical sequences.
-->
@zedvictor4
Let me break this down for you.
Things are, irrespective of a viewer.
This means facts exist regardless of whether or not a viewer is there to witness them.
No viewer....Things...But no facts.
This means the total opposite of that, therefore your two quotes make no sense and have nothing to do with logic, carry on.
-->
@Tarik
Nope...This means things are.....The viewer/s create the facts.
So.... No viewer....Things still are....But no one to create facts.
Let me spell it out....A fact, is a human data construct, relative to something......A fact isn't the something.
-->
@zedvictor4
Then what is the something?
-->
@Tarik
Unless something can be known , then what?
Presumably it still would be....But that wouldn't be a fact unless it could be known.
Facts are internal knowledge, not external events that cannot be known.
-->
@zedvictor4
That doesn’t answer my question.
-->
@zedvictor4
Unless something can be known , then what?Presumably it still would be....But that wouldn't be a fact unless it could be known.Facts are internal knowledge, not external events that cannot be known.
Definition of fact
1a: something that has actual existence space exploration is now a fact
b: an actual occurrence prove the fact of damage
2: a piece of information presented as having objective reality These are the hard facts of the case.
3: the quality of being actual : ACTUALITY a question of fact hinges on evidence
in fact
: in truth He looks younger, but in fact, he is 60 years old.
Whether you know it internally or not, it is still a fact according to definition 1. There is still something that exists whether you internalize it or not. Thus, it is independent of your knowledge. You are not necessary for it to exist, yet I would argue God is.
-->
@PGA2.0
You are not necessary for it to exist, yet I would argue God is.
CERTAINLY, ZEUS IS A FACT.
-->
@zedvictor4
Presumably it still would be....But that wouldn't be a fact unless it could be known.
But that wouldn't be a fact unless it could be known.
But that wouldn't be a fact unless it could be known.
But that wouldn't be a fact unless it could be known.
-->
@PGA2.0
No brain no fact.
Definition is also the result of internal process.
So no brain, no definition, and no fact.
Something can only be known to be a fact or defined, if it can be known to be a fact and defined.
Therefore, without the ability to know, something cannot be known to be, or be defined ...So no fact and no definition.
-->
@zedvictor4
It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.
-->
@zedvictor4
No brain no fact.
If your particular brain did not exist would the fact still be there? That should answer it for you.
As I said before, it does not depend on your contingent mind or mine, but a necessary mind. Which human mind would be such a mind?
I think you are using the term "brain" generically, not specifically here, but nevertheless it brings up the point of what you mean when you throw around that concept of the brain as necessary for facts. Without a brain you say there would be no facts. How did the brain come about then? Magic? Poof!
Besides this, I would like to emphasize a difference between a mind and brain.
Definition is also the result of internal process.
There is an actual standard to compare things to. We put into words and give meaning to things that relates to actual/real things.
So no brain, no definition, and no fact.
I presume by no brain you are speaking of the brain in total, not just yours or my contingent brains.
Not,
If your brain did not exist there would be no actuality for me or your parents either?
Something can only be known to be a fact or defined, if it can be known to be a fact and defined.
Tautology.
Therefore, without the ability to know, something cannot be known to be, or be defined ...So no fact and no definition.
You deny God as a necessary being, in making sense of existence and facts. Am I right? You place facts as dependent on our human brains existing for knowledge. Thus, all facts are not God facts. Thus, everything is left to contingent beings. As you state, "No brain no fact." Does that include God? You make sense of everything without God's necessity. You speak from a position that denies God. Yet, were there facts before your brain or any other human brain existed?
I point you to the definition above which states that facts are actual things.
I argue neither your knowledge or mine is dependent on the facts existence. If you did not exist I would still see, feel, hear, touch, and taste actual things. We did not cause the universe to exist, the river to run by, the laws of gravity, or thermodynamics. We discover natural laws and principles as we discover physical things exist. We discover the three hundred year old things existence. We also appeal to a greater knowledge than ourselves, a knowledge that comes from the actuality. We don't create these things. 2 + 2 = 4 is true regardless of whether you know it. Would it be true of no human existed? The SUV in my driveway is an actuality whether you believe or know about it or not. Thus, your contingent mind and knowledge is not necessary for its existence. If no human mind existed you are speculating that things/facts (the actuality) would not exist. I say it does not depend on your subjective mindset and brain whether they exist. They existed before you or any other humans existed yet I argue that they do require a mind, a necessary mind (God), for their existence. This whole topic is which view makes better or more sense or which view is more reasonable to believe - God or a lack of a God (atheism). I keep challenging you to make sense of facts without God and you come up with these puzzlers that CAN'T make sense of our existence. You are at the stage of the chicken or the egg.
"No brain no fact." Since (I presume) you deny God as the necessary mind, more than a brain or physical thing, how do you know this?
-->
@PGA2.0
How do you know this?
Exactly my point.
Whether or not a GOD principle is actually relevant, is unknown, and therefore speculative.
All that we can be reasonably certain of, are the abilities of human function and derived facts thereof.
So, no human no fact.
There might be other stuff...But we can only speculate, because we can.
-->
@PGA2.0
Something can only be known to be a fact or defined, if it can be known to be a fact and defined.Tautology.
Well stated.
-->
@zedvictor4
So, no human no fact.
How many times do you have to say this tired argument and how many times does it have to be refuted for you to get it? PGA2.0 gave a a very well thorough argument explaining this yet you ignored all of it just to go back to the beginning where no progress can be made? Your presenting yourself to be a troll at this point.
Why are we talking about this now?
-->
@Tarik
@3RU7AL
Tautology describes as tautology does.....Quite adequately in this instance.
But for those that require clarification.
One can only know something, if one can...That is to say, if one possesses the ability to know.
Similarly, if one lacks the ability to know, then one won't know.
A fact is a human construct, not the subject of the construct.
-->
@PGA2.0
ludofl3x 249Or the stuff in the universe was always around in various forms, cycling from big bang to big crunch eternally.PGA2.0 280How do you get to the present universe from an infinite of universes? These universes coming and going? They do not all exist simultaneously. So what created the universe? What is this 'stuff' and how can it 'act' as an agent?You can't have an infinite causality and get to the present causality, can you? Explain how it you think soAmoranemix 897What relevance does any of that have ?[*]First, it is off topic.[**][a] Second, suppose ludofl3x doesnt know, so what ? The only attempt at relevance I can see is that you are looking for evidence for the first premise of the God of the gaps argument : [b]P1 Atheists can't explain how this or that is possible.P2 God is responsible for everthing atheists can't explain.C Therefore, God exists.Officially, most Christians admit it is a bad argument, but they use it anyway, because it works. Why do you think it is that so many people still fall for it ?[***]PGA2.0 1052[*]The relevance? I am answering and challenging a specific statement of his. I am asking him for his explanation.[**] Directly, yes. Indirectly it ties into morality. Just as with the universe, so how you view the causal tree of the origin of the universe correlates with how you arrive at the moral.[a] As per above, you come to a false conclusion once again.[560] I gave you an example of further relevance. It is more about atheism of the gaps.[561][b] That is not my argument. It is the argument given by Willian Lane Craig, citing Leibniz, in On Guard, p. 54,[Cosmological argument]So, do you wish to tackle the four premises or the conclusion?[561][***] [no response]
[*a] That does not make it relevant. He was responding to a statement from you.
[*b] Then the whole history of the universe and before, as the laws of phycics, chemistry and biology would tie into morality, which would make the topic too vast. Discussing all that in a single thread helps avoiding clarity (the Christian's enemy). In the interest of clarity (the skeptic's friend) it is better to limit the scope, for example by debating under certain assumptions, which you should have provided in the OP. E.g. the existence of a certain god could be assumed for the sake of the argument.
[560] You are mistaken, for I presented no conclusion, let alone a false one, but a question.
[561] What example of futher relevance did you give and where ?
What is about atheism of the gaps and what is atheism of the gaps anyway ? You are merely throwing an undefined, pejorative term in there to make atheism look bad.
[b] I have not said the god-of-the-gaps argument was yours. Moreover, Craig presenting it, does not give it any more validity.
You give the impression of confusing the god-of-the-gaps argument with Leibniz' cosmological argument.
[561] Your fallacy of choice is misdirection. The subject was the relevance of the cyclicity of the universe as an explanation, which led to the god-of-the-gaps argument, from wich you jumped without good reason to the cosmological argument.
[***] You forgot to answer my question.
Amoranemix 897Why would God need to restore the children to a better place ? Whatever God does is good and just according to his own standard.PGA2.0 1052[a] Because it is not in His nature to punish but to reward the innocent. The better place is an intimately personal relationship with the Almighty God in heaven.[b] God's nature is the standard. To understand goodness, we look to God.
You are missing the point. If it were in his nature to punish certain children, then God's moral standard would define punishing them as good. If God's standard also prohibits the punishement of innocents, then God's standard would define these children as guilty. So God's nature defines who is guilty and defines that it is good to punish the guilty, at least according to Christians. Hence, there wouldn't be anything wrong with the death of these children : they would be guilty and deserve punishment.
The problem with the above is of course that it makes God look bad to those not unconditionally infatuated with him. If God behaves immorally according to the moral standards of his audience, then they could reject him on those grounds.
PGA2.0 287 to 3RU7ALThe point, there are explanations for why this happened.Amoranemix 897The point is off topic. This is a debate about morality. Behaviours need not be explained, but justified.[562]PGA2.0 1052I contend that morality goes deeper than human beings. Your subjective mindset is not sufficient for understanding morality.[562]My analogy goes like this:[ . . . ] They look at and sometimes identify the symptoms but can't prescribe the cure. They say, "This happened" (i.e., Joe took a gun and shot her for eating sour grapes), but they can't determine what lead to it happening (the motive, the actions to the incident, the reasons involved) to prevent it from happening again. The symptoms are different from preventing it from happening in the first place.
[562] Of course I don't understand everything causally preceding morality and neither do you. Hence, it is not a discriminating factor and thus irrelevant.
The end of your paragraph indicates your lecture is off topic. You seem to think that the topic of this debate is the following :
“People are exhibiting undesirable behaviour. Which worldview is most suited for preventing people from exhibiting such behaviour ?”
That is off topic. Again, read the OP to find out what is on topic.
PGA2.0 288 to 3RU7ALI work from the principle of the Ten Commandments, which delves into most aspects of morality for it deals with what happens when someone wrongs instead of loves others. Abortion centers on the "thou shalt not kill/murder" principle. Abortion is a spiteful act that does not take into account the life of someone else but thinks of self. It is not loving.[87] All human life is created in the image and likeness of God. It is God's right to take human life since we are His creatures.[88]God permits exceptions for civil societies to function. Wrongdoing - life for life; that would be equal justice. The exception to abortion is when the woman will die before the unborn is developed enough to save it. Then it is permissible to take its life because the death of the woman would be unavoidable and so would that of the unborn. At leat one is saved, so it is the greater outcome of the two - one dead instead of two. When someone dies unintentionally, in the case of manslaughter, the intent is not to do harm (but sometimes it can be because of carelessness), but an accident results in death. That is not the same thing as malicious or spiteful intent - murder - that the commandment deals with.[89]Amoranemix 908[87] So is rape. Yet I don't see any prohobition against that in the Ten Commandments. From biological evolution point of view on the other hand, rape is useful, as it helps the distribution of the rape gene. No god is required for that.[88] How is that supposed to follow ?[89] I don't see the Ten Commandments mention any of that. Is that just your personal opinion you use to fill the gaps in your moral axioms ?PGA2.0 1054The principle of love for your neighbour is in the commandments as a prohibition against rape.[563] Jesus expanded on the Ten Commandments then condensed them into two. There are various principles contained in the commandments that apply to rape, like coveting, adultery, and idolatry. You may even include stealing (taking something that has not been given to you).[564] The law is very just when it comes to rape.[565] It takes into account the good of the woman, whether married or single. Remember, this was Ancient Near East culture (ANE) where killing a man (the family's protector) would leave the women and children vulnerable. So, here is what we find:Deuteronomy 22:25-29 (NASB)[ . . . ][comments on Deutoronomy 22:25-29][566][88] You may not like the principle of God taking life, but when you make something, you are free to do with it as you want.[567] It is your creation. Would you agree?[568] God designed humans to know Him. Being in His universe, He has the right to determine how you should live. Sin or wrongdoing against God is something we are accountable for, yet God is merciful and has provided a way in which we can renew our fellowship and relationship with Him.[ . . . ][89] Life for life is equal justice.Abortion is murder. It kills another human being. Thus it is covered under "You shall not kill/murder."Miscarriage is not usually malicious, intentional murder. The woman aborting the unborn to save her life is not murder since if she does not, she will die, and so will the unborn due to its lack of viability. In ANE times with tubal pregnancy, both died since the medical knowledge back then was primitive. Today, we can save one.
[563] First, you claim a prohibition against rape was intended with the commandment to love one's neighbour. Please demonstrate that.
Second, please demonstrates that it actually prohibits rape.
[564] Coveting s not rape. In modern, civilized societies, rapists are condemned, even when they didn't covet and coveters are not condemned.
Adultery is not rape. In modern, civilized societies adultery is not a penal crime, while rape inside a marriage is.
Idolatry doe not even remotely resemble rape and is not condemned in modern, civilized societies.
No. Stealing is not taking something that has not been given to you and rape is theft only figuratively.
[565] That is a red herring. What the law is, is irrelevant. What the Ten Commandments (don't) say is.
[566] That is a red herring. Whether Deutoronomy 22:25-29 condemns rape is a different issue than whether the Ten Commandments (your moral axioms) condemn rape.
[567] If you have the ability, if you have the power, if you can get away with, then you are free to do with your creation anything you want, or with anything else for that matter, but that is not the question. Do you have the right to do anything you want ? That depends on the reference moral standard or legislation. I am sure God has that right according to his personal, subjective moral standard, but that does not qualify as a justification, as plenty of villains have analogous 'rights'.
[568] You want my opinion on whether one has the right to do what one wants with one's creation ? Does my opinion matter ? If so, why ? Are you looking for a consensus ? Is it true of we can all agree on it ? You have been campaigning this whole thread against that system of thought.
My opinion is that it depends and that often with rights come obligations.
In the rest of your paragraph you again baldly assert that God has rights and how nice he is. In my worldview, without a reference standards, these is merely opinions.
The rest of your lecture looks like a biased fairy tale and you have given no good reason to believe it is more than that.
[89] You forgot to answer my question, presumably because the answer is yes : you are filling the gaps left by your moral axioms with your personal opinion. Hence you are in the same boat as skeptics : you don't have what is necessary for true morality and are reduced to doing what you scold them for doing : pretend your personal preferences make something moral. However, unlike skeptics, you deny being in that boat.
-->
@Amoranemix
Well stated.
17 days later
-->
@PGA2.0
PGA2.0 301Words carry specific meaning when in context. From a context you can determine what is spoken of. If not, the author needs to make his meaning more clear. If you have not grasped the author's meaning, you have not understood what the author said or communicated.Amoranemix 908What if the author fails to make the meaning more clear ?[*] I sometimes debate a Christian who keeps throwing moral attributes around without specifying the referenced moral standard.[**] He assumes that when different people use the same word, like good or right, they mean the same thing. The author appears to want to sow confusion (the Christian's friend).[***]PGA2.0 1054[*] By questioning him/her, you inquire into the true meaning. When the author is not available to supply the true interpretation, there is obscurity. That is not the biblical case, although you will probably argue otherwise.[**] I have always made it clear that I argue for no god but God (the biblical God). Thus, I am particular when speaking about morality per the thread's title and my opening post. The reference is God, and by His nature and revelation, we come to understand His goodness. Only one God has been revealed as omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, immutable, and eternal.[***] I speak of the right and wrong principle and sometimes get into specific examples as I did with abortion. I keep asking you what you mean by "the good" if goodness is relative, and there is no fixed and final standard - God and His nature.[569] You have provided nothing that withstands scrutiny.[570][*] Indeed. You on the other hand have not argued that the meaning intended by the biblical authors is unambiguous. You have merely asserted it.Multiple different interpretations by Christians and damaging interpretations by non-Christians are evidence to the contrary.
[**] 1) You are not really saying it to avoid clarity (the skeptic's friend), but nonetheless suggesting that you systematically make clear which moral standard you refer to. I am again unambiguous in this matter : you systematically omit doing so.
2) You are contradicting yourself. In the OP you omitted to mention the reference moral standard, which I pointed out in post 798. In post 882 you said the reference standard 'would be' (as if you weren't even sure yourself) an atheistic one, but omitted to mention which one. As I have said before, often an implicit reference to God's morality would make your questions stupid and your statements banal.
3) Even if you had somewhere clearly stated that you are always implicitely referring to God's morality or justice (and consequently that would lower the quality of your posts even further), you would still be deceptive, as readers still wouldn't know that. That resembles Bible torture Christians often use : when the Bible says A, it actually means B and we know that by interpreting 'A' with the help of a different paragraph somewhere else in the Bible. That is great for deceiving people : you manage to make them believe something without actually having lied to them.
4) That leads to equivocation. If I am implicitely referring to moral standard A and you reply by implicitely referring to God's morality, then we are using the same words for different moralities, where good means two different things, leading to the problems you have often complained about. That is great for confusion, your trustworthy friend and the enemy of truth and understanding.
5) Christians have a habit of quoting out of context. If I were to agree that God is good and just or has the right to do with his creatures whatever he wants, then, if that suits your agenda, you would be communicating that 'admission' to others, but without telling them that God's morality is the reference standard and that I do not adhere to that standard, for that would defeat the purpose : deception.
I think the root cause for your problem is that you assume that there can be only one morality and argue that morality must be yours. Thus automatically we would all be talking about the same thing : your god's morality. Those silly skeptics just don't know it. As Ramshutu pointed out, you are begging the question.
If you had debated with half your brain switched on, you would have known that skeptics don't believe that and that your fanatical attachment to your assumptions makes progress impossible. But progress would be bad for you. You would not want this debate to provide clarity about the true role God plays in morality. Skeptics know consciously what that role is and they don't mind it being revealed. You know it only unconsciously and that is enough to generate in your mind a visceral aversion to clarity.
[569] You are mistaken, as usual. I have kept asking what you meant with your moral qualifiers, but you have not asked the same. The few times that you have, I have answered. I have also explained that it depends on context.
Abortian is merely an example context. It does not clarify what you mean in different contexts.
[570] On the contrary, I have in my posts.
Amoranemix 908 to secularmerlinActually, just now I get the sense of your analogy. You should have explained it. It thought the kidney stood for the fetus. I suspect PGA2.0 didn't get it either.PGA2.0 1055It is a common argument used by abortion advocates that stems from Judith Jarvis Thomson's violinist analogy. It would help if you familiarized yourself with such arguments before you make these claims against me. I understand it well, and I disagree with the premise for several reasons, and here are a few of them:[ . . . ]
I had assumed you were being honest. I had dismissed the possibility that you were merely pretending to misunderstand the analogy.
PGA2.0 330 to SkepticalOneNow you mention two types of foreign slaves, one a war captive and therefore a reparation for the damages suffered[90], and the other bought to serve the Hebrew family from a foreign country, again usually becoming a slave in a foreign land because of poverty or debt. Even so, the type of slavery or servitude was different between the treatment in Israel to that experienced in other ANE nations. But to your point, the foreigner, during a war, would be responsible for the damages inflicted on the victor.[91] [ . . . ]Amoranemix 908[90] I doubt the Israelite's victims found enslavement sufficient compensation for the damage they suffered.[91] [a] Might makes right morality. [b] In that respect your fictional worldview does not differ from reality.PGA2.0 1059[90] Thanks for yet another doubtful opinionated statement![571] Are you speaking of matters you know something about?[572] Have you done any research on ANE slavery? What do you know about ANE slavery??? [573][91] [a] It was common in ANE cultures to use might. The Mosaic law was based on justice and mercy. I've explained it briefly above and in other posts.[b] Your same old worn-out tune. Show you can explain morality. That is what this post is about, which worldview is more reasonable concerning morality.
[571] You are welcome. Given all the doubtfull, bald assertions you generously distribute, the least I could do was return an opinion.
[572] Yes.
[573] I am too lazy to write an essay on what I know of ANE slavery.
If you have good reasons to believe that the israelites' victims were satisfied with their enslavement as compensation for the losses they suffered, then please share those reasons.
[a] God, being an adept of might-makes-right morality, would have no good reason to change the moral culture if his favourite morality was already in place. Better is to call it just and merciful.
[b] Again ? Show me your god exists. Without him, your morality is pure fiction.
Amoranemix 908I don't know what banana republic you live in, but in our justice system, it is not necessarily the one who lost a conflict that has to pay the damages. If Bob stole and wrecked Alice's car, in my country it would be Bob who would have to repay the damages to Alice, not the other war round.PGA2.0 1059[a] reparations | History, Definition, & Examples | BritannicaGerman War Reparations in WWI & WWII | Study.comCOVID-19 and International Law: Must China Compensate Countries for the Damage? (justsecurity.org)War reparations - Wikipedia[b] You are the one turning it around (give your head a shake).[574] Just as Bob stole Alice's car, so Germany inflicted great loss in many countries during WWII.[ . . . ]
[a] You are confusing what is with what ought to be. Of course it is the loser of a war who pays to the victor. That is might-makes-right justice and God's favourite justice. That does not imply that is the way it ought to be.
[574] What are you talking about ?
PGA2.0 331 to SkepticalOneWell-being in whose eyes? Your subjective eyes? No thank you.Amoranemix 908His point exactly. You dislike well-being. He dislikes God. In the real world we all have our preferences.PGA2.0 1059I dislike injustice.[575] Hitler's or Kim Jung-un's or Margret Sanger's or your relative, subjective well-being is only good for the select members of society, not everyone. Thus, it is unjust for where there is not equal justice; there is none.
[575] Injustice in whose eyes ? Your subjective eyes ? Why should SkepticalOne care ?
Adolf Hitler's, Kim Jung-un's, God's or your relative, subjective justice is only good for the select members of society, not everyone. Thus, it is unjust for where there is not equal justice; there is none.
PGA2.0 331 to SkepticalOneHow does that answer my question? You continue to evade my questions.Amoranemix 908Read who is writing.PGA2.0 1059What is your point other than another ad hom?
The point is that you are blaming others for failures that you are committing yourself.
PGA2.0 331 to SkepticalOneThat is your subjective opinion. What makes that right or anything you say right since you have no objective standard of appeal. Why SHOULD (a moral imperative) I trust your subjective opinion since it appears that is all you have got? Your subjectiveness is what wars are fought over.Amoranemix 908Religious wars are far more popular than subjectiveness wars.PGA2.0 1059In most cases, they are the same. The "just wars" are few and far between.
That there is subjectiveness in religious wars does not make them the same, as there is subjectiveness in anything involving humans.
Moreover, you have provided no evidence that less wars are fought over your subjectiveness than over SkepticalOne's.
28 days later
Amoranemix 908[a] Something you are missing is that in matter of abortion, almost everyone agrees on what has value, i.e. [b] they have shared preferences. [c] Both the rights of the mother and the life of the child have value. [d] The contention is about what has most value. [e] Almost noone is of the opinion that abortion is good. However, many people consider, i.e. are of the opinion, [f] that in some cases no abortion is even worse.PGA2.0 1059[a] I did not miss it. Tens of millions disagree that abortion is a good thing. The only value comes when saving the woman's life in a tubal pregnancy.[b] I must remind you that preference makes nothing right, just doable if the person, group, society has the might to act their preferences.[c] What about the "Rights" of the child/unborn? Why are you only giving the woman rights?[576] Must I again remind you, the most basic natural right for any human being is the right to life.[577][d] So, once again, you do not recognize that all human beings have equal rights to life.[578] You join the long list of people like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong-un, Pol Pot, Putin, Yi Jiping, who are selective in who lives and dies.[579] These people dehumanized those that they see as less valuable.[e] Wrong. Many are of that opinion since they are woefully ignorant about what is being killed. They would not support abortion if they thought is wrong.[f] 95-99% of abortions are "choice-based" on want or affordability, depending on what source is cited. Since when could anyone other than a mother kill her own offspring based on not wanting them or not being willing to support them?[Statistics]Again, I will remind you that you discriminate against one group (the unborn) yet not the other.[580] [ . . . ]
[a] I doubt you are ignorant enough to believe that.
You missed the point (that thing you claimed to not have missed).
[b] Says the guy who believes God's preference makes something right.
[c 576] I am not.
[577] Why did you not notice, while writing that response, that I had mentioned that right in the sentence you were responding to ?
Can you demonstrate the most basic natural right for a human being is the right to life ?
[578] Your fallacy of choice is : the non-sequitur.
[579] accuses the guy who accused me of ad hominem attacks.
[e] What you are claiming would surprise me if true and you have not supported it. What you have demonstrated is that you are an unreliable source for the beliefs and values of your opponents.
[f] I don't know. Relevance ?
[580] I remind you that what you remind me of is wishful thinking. Get a decent worldview please, one that does not facilitate confusing your desires with reality.
3RU7AL 306You validate the moral codec of "YHWH" by using YOUR moral intuition.PGA2.0 335I validate them by pointing to a standard beyond myself that is necessary because it is fixed and unchanging.[92] Logically, that is what is necessary because the law of identity (A=A) falls to pieces if every subjective being has a different view on what is right and good.[93] So, it is self-evident for anyone who thinks about what is necessary. A subjective standard does not meet what is necessary.[94]Amoranemix 908[92] That doesn't look like what you are doing.[a] You seem to be of the opinion that slavery is wrong, but the Bible appears to condone slavery.[b] So you torture the Bible to make it say what you want. With success. Now the Bible only rarely condones slavery and the slavery it does condone isn't that bad. *sigh of relief*Moreover, you have so far been unable to demonstrate that being fixed and unchanging are necessary attributes for a standard.[*][93] No, it does not. You have admitted yourself in post 301 a word's meaning depends on context. Hence one person may mean something different with the same word. So, if one person is saying “Trees are marpalent.” and the other is saying “Trees are not marpelent.”, then that could mean :a) They are contradicting each other. In the real world it happens that people contradict each other. That is why that also happens in the worldview of skeptics, because, unlike you, skeptics base their worldview on the real world.b) [a] Both persons do not mean the same thing with 'marpalent'. Hence, they would not be contradicting each other. You gave as example in post 301 how green can have more than one meaning. In our debate on debate.org, you said a few times that things can't be both right and wrong in the same sense, because you realize they could be [b] right and wrong in a different sense. But then you also realized that guarding term was underming your argument, so you stopped using it and assumed that the same word always means the same thing, thereby leaving reality and entering your fictional worldview, where there is room for God.[94] A subjective standard is not supposed to meet what is necessary. My bycicle doesn't meet what is necessary, yet that doesn't make my bycicle wrong and it would be stupid to discard my bicycle because of that.PGA2.0 1065[responses to a and b]a) It is common sense and not logically consistent to believe two opposite things regarding the same thing can both be true about it simultaneously and in the same relationship. If you want to deny logic's laws, I think we have gone as far as we can because you are being irrational. A thing cannot be what it is and what it is not at the same time.[581][a] I don't even know what the word means if there is such a word, but if there are several meanings, then the same meaning must be used in both cases to be understood or else there is no equivalency.[582] If I say, "The grass is green," it does not mean the same thing as saying, "I am green with envy." One use of the word green speaks of the literal grass's colour, the other speaks of jealousy/covetousness/desire. In the second instance, I am not saying I am literally green.[b] I'm not sure of your specific reference since you once again gave no actual context or link.If the context is speaking of one thing, you can't switch that context to another thing. When you speak of the moral good, you can't switch that to what you like and call that morally good.[583a] The two are used to express different things; one an ought, the other a desire or like. There is equivocation going on when that happens.[583b][94] Again, there is a disjunction happening here. You are again trying to equate riding your bicycle with moral good.[584] Not only this, but you are equating a thing as necessary as opposed to a person/persons.[585] Morals come from sentient beings. They do not come from bicycles. Bicycles are not necessary for morals; beings are.
[*] One does not need to be a rocket scientist to guess why you have been unable to demonstrate that.
[581] Your fallacy of choice is : the red herring. Whether two opposite claims regarding the same thing can both true is off topic and no one claimed they can. Again, read the OP to learn what this thread is about.
[582] Apparently in your worldview, when two persons use a word, then they must be using it with the same meaning so that there is an equivalency. That is however, not the always case in reality. Believing that what must be also is, is wishful thinking.
[583a] You are mistaken. You frequently in your replies switch to a different meaning for moral terms. The meaning of the words 'good' and 'right' you use is often different than the one your interlocuters use.
Switching the context is not the issue. Switching the meaning is.
[583b] Indeed. Fallacies are a useful tool for deception. That is why you rely on them so heavily. Equivocation is one of them.
You haven't disputed anything I have said. Applying these principles to moral qualifications, your assumption that apparently morally contradictory claims are always actual morally contradictory claims, is false. In stead of supporting your assumption, you have undermined it.
[584] You are mistaken, for I am not. I have provided a counter-example to your implied principle that if something does not have what is necessary for morality, it should be dismissed.
[585] I don't even know what that means. I suspect you are mistaken, as usual.
Amoranemix 908[95] [a] You seem to be assuming that one needs to be able to justify one's opinion to be better than someone else's. However, if I understand correctly, [b] you yourself are unable to justify your opinion to be better than someone else's. You certainly haven't done so.[c] Notice again how you omitted to provide a definition or reference standard for “better”. You wouldn't want people to know what exactly you mean with “better”, would you ?PGA2.0 1065[a] Oh, boy... Better is a comparative term. It implies it is being compared to something else. If there is no ideal, then what are you comparing it against?[586] Something that constantly changes? How do you KNOw it is better in such a fleeting standard?[587] Your mark keeps shifting.[b] Again, I have what is necessary for there to be a "better." Your worldview does not, or at least...you have not been able to demonstrate it does. I have what is necessary to justify morality; you do not. Thus, once again, my Christian system of thought is more reasonable to believe than yours.[c] I have pointed to the standard many times - the biblical God, as I did in the next paragraph, it appears.[588] You continue to ignore it and blow smoke.[589] I can give you many avenues of reasonable proof of His existence.[590] Choosing not to believe them is your choice.
[586] One would be comparing against a standard of quality, obviously. I am confident you would know that if were not an obstacle to god-belief.
[587] One could use the standard of quality to compare the contestants. Relevance ?
To recapitulate : You asserted that an objective standard is self-evident for morality. You attempted to support that (as if someting self-evident requires support) with a question, suggesting that without such standard one cannot justify one's opinion as better. However, even if that were true, that still would not support your conclusion. Hence, as usual, all you present in support of your position is fluff.
[b] You are again displaying your bias here. If I present my opinion as a standard of quality, you scream murder and fire (your bias against my opinion). On the other hand, when you present your opinion as standard of quality, you praize it to the sky (your bias for your opinion).
I on the other, look at it from a neutral, evidence-based perspective. I see that my standard of quality is based on reality, while yours is based on someting that may not exist. Hence, in that respect my standard trumps yours, while there is nothing you can provide to compensate for that weakness. (No. Your bias doesn't count.)
Atheism 1 – 0 Christianity
[588] Your fallacy of choice is the straw man. How many gazillion times you have presented your standard is irrelevant. The accusation is that you fail to attach the reference standard to your moral or quality qualifiers. It leads to the equivocation you mentioned before, that tool useful for deception. You know that would provide clarity (the Christian's enemy) and that is why stubbornly refuse to do that.
[589] Can you demonstrate that I blow smoke ?
[590] But you never do for some reason. On the other hand, you do claim you have already done so on occasion.