Antitheist AMA

Author: Theweakeredge

Posts

Total: 351
#121
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
We're talking about the view that things benefiting humans are good and things causing negatives towards them is bad, thats a subjective take. 
Whether or not something is subjective is a semantics question, also words and their meanings.

Topic's author
#122
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tarik
No its not, its referring to whether something is true with or without a mind. Because subjective things are dependent on the mind for existence, while objective things aren't. You haven't made a point.
#123
TheMelioist
TheMelioist's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 24
0
0
5
TheMelioist's avatar
TheMelioist
0
0
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
I know that this is a cliché to ask. But if the Christian God existed, (hypothetically, not saying he does) would you worship him?
#124
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
No its not, its referring to whether something is true with or without a mind.
What are you referring to when you say it?

Topic's author
#125
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@TheMelioist
Most definitely not, I would make it my life's work to undermine him.
Topic's author
#126
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tarik
It as in reference to your previous post, which is clear given the context of having written the post, as you did - specifically - it refers to whether or not something is subjective. 
#127
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
What is the basis of your contention against the existence of god(s)? How are you capable of observing the nonexistence of god(s) to the extent where you can formulate an argument that is informed by said nonexistence?
#128
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
Okay I’m still lost, can you please reword your argument without using the word “it” to be more specific.

Topic's author
#129
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Athias
I have yet to be convinced by the position that "god(s) exist" and because there is an supernatural agent being described, the default position is that there is no such thing. To claim otherwise would require more assumptions and more evidence of such. Not to mention - there being god(s) would imply that certain things (such as immortality, creating matter precisely, etc) that has not been demonstrated otherwise, in other words, these things not being evidently possible is evidence against the position of such things. Let me ask you a question, how are you capable of observing the nonexistence of a 1000 dollar bill? Because its not there, that is the evidence of there not being a dollar bill.... there not being a dollar bill. As such, in this singular case - absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Because we are discussing the existence of an agent specifically. 
Topic's author
#130
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Athias
Measuring whether something is subjective or not is not semantic, something is subjective whenever it depends on the mind to be true, whereas something that is objective does not. that has nothing to do with semantics.
#131
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
Measuring whether something is subjective or not is not semantic
It is when that thing is a word and last time I checked morality is a word, and words are semantic.

Topic's author
#132
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tarik
Are you joking right now? Seriously? Yes morality is a word, but that is describing a feature of the thing I am using to communicate, not what it is fundamentally. Obviously "water" is a word, but the actual thing, "water" is not word, its a liquid composed of hydrogen and oxygen. That applies here, those fundamental things aren't words. You are incorrect and are seeming to not be taking this seriously more and more.
#133
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
We're talking about the view that things benefiting humans are good and things causing negatives towards them is bad, thats a subjective take. 
My mistake I should’ve shed light on the meaning of the word which is also semantics. Looking at the quote above semantics can objectively prove this, all you have to do is reference a dictionary, is it so hard to believe a dictionary could define good as beneficial and bad as negative?

Topic's author
#134
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tarik
Did... you ignore my point... .those dictionaries also have several other definitions of harm and benefits, why aren't those the defintions here? You would still have to make an assertion in arguing that it is necessarily true, which it isn't it is true if you accept a subjective premise, which is why there are definitions that line up like that at all.
#135
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Theweakeredge

those dictionaries also have several other definitions of harm and benefits, why aren't those the defintions here?
I’m sure the other definitions are similar it’s not like theirs a huge deviation where the two conflict with each other.

You would still have to make an assertion in arguing that it is necessarily true, which it isn't it is true if you accept a subjective premise
Truth isn’t predicated on what you accept, you don’t have to accept that the earth is round it’s still true regardless of your ignorance just like you don’t have to accept the dictionary’s definition of good and bad it’s still true regardless.

Topic's author
#136
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tarik
They do deviate though... not to mention, that wasn't the primary point, the point was that that could be a valid definition of god, given that you accept the subjective premise - and obviously humans do. You have yet to demonstrate that it is the preferred definition or that there is objective basis for accepting that. Not to mention this is, in general, a semantic point with little value to the real conversation. It doesn't matter if good specifically doesn't apply here, what matters is that benefiting humans is on the positive scale of morality with a objective basis or not. 
#137
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
They do deviate though... not to mention, that wasn't the primary point, the point was that that could be a valid definition of god, given that you accept the subjective premise - and obviously humans do.
There is no could’ve would’ve should’ve in regards to definitions there’s just what is.

“You have yet to demonstrate that it is the preferred definition or that there is objective basis for accepting that.”
Preferred definition over what? I can almost guarantee that their isn’t a definition implying good isn’t beneficial and bad isn’t negative, if you say there is then I would like you to demonstrate that because I can’t prove a negative. I would argue that the objective basis is no other alternative definitions.

It doesn't matter if good specifically doesn't apply here, what matters is that benefiting humans is on the positive scale of morality with a objective basis or not.
For the sake of discussion I would appreciate if you specified certain terms for clarity considering our disagreements, when you say benefit do you mean subjective benefit? and when you say positive do you mean subjectively positive? Because putting emphasis on those terms impacts how I receive them.
Topic's author
#138
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tarik
Again - harm, as we both saw, more accurately represents physical damage to a structure, or something along those lines- but bad and harm aren't analagous as you said they were. They can be, but they aren't necessarily. Also, benefit is either a gathering or an advantage.... so... you're wrong there too. Furthermore, this doesn't really matter.... let's assume, even though you're wrong, that you're right - and benefit means good and harm means bad. The portion of it that is subjective is whether humans being harmed is bad or not, and whether humans being benefited is bad or not, the entire aspect of us putting human into that spot and not say, mice, or the sun, is the subjective gauge. And you always try to change the subject whenever I mention that. 
#139
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
If you mean “subjectively” bad then I dismiss both arguments because I believe bad is objective.

Topic's author
#140
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tarik
Demonstrate that position
#141
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
Objective morality can be conceptualized, articulated, and comprehended, you can’t do that with arbitrary subjective things (assuming morality is subjective) if you don’t share the same emotional appeal as someone else. Also if you look at synonyms for objective and synonyms for subjective it’s nothing but positive terms for the former and negative terms for the latter so if morality is those negative things then ideally you shouldn’t want anything to do with it, I mean why do you think objective arguments hold weight in debates over subjective ones because subjectivity is flawed to some degree.
Topic's author
#142
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tarik
First of all, the terms are synoymous with destruction? Which fits because "physical damage" but why is remodeling "bad". Second of all, are you saying I couldn't comprehend or conceptualize morality? Are you saying I couldn't enact it? What do you specifically mean by actualize? Because if you mean, show some physical incantation of it, then you could show an example of objective or subjective morality, so that doesn't work, do you mean show literal objective morality? Because you haven't proven you could do that with objective morality either. And above all of this, where the hell did you get that arbitary set of rules, can you demonstrate that it doesn't apply to objective morality, can you demonstrate that it doesn't apply to subjective morality, you have done neither. Finally - objective arguments hold weight over subjective arguments in a different fashion then what we are talking about - whenever something is influenced by emotions or something to that degree, then objective arguments not based on that would have an advantage, but that is conflating that subjective with the subjective I am talking about. Would people prefer there to be objective morality over subjective? Sure, does that mean there is objective morality? Not that you've demonstrated.
#143
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
Finally - objective arguments hold weight over subjective arguments in a different fashion then what we are talking about - whenever something is influenced by emotions or something to that degree, then objective arguments not based on that would have an advantage, but that is conflating that subjective with the subjective I am talking about.
Great now there’s different subjectives now, what’s the difference because I don’t see it, the idea of subjective morality stems from appeal of emotion making it logically fallacious, you want me to substantiate that? Fine, take a “subjective” moral issue like murder, any argument you make against it stems from emotional appeal of humans and you can call it subjective appeal all you want but it’s emotional also because if you didn’t care about humans (caring being an emotion) you wouldn’t argue in favor of them. A huge cognitive dissonance I see among atheists is many of them don’t believe in God because they see no proof, yet they choose to believe in subjective morality even though you can’t prove subjectivity.
#144
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,050
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
Where did I say that I knew you better than you knew yourself?

In fact, If you read the post again carefully (#81), you will see that I was saying the exact opposite.


And you did just say that everyone you are stuck with is ignorant......I didn't say that....You made your own decision.
#145
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
Then why would you doubt a claim I made about myself?
#146
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,050
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
Remind me.

#147
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
I made a claim about myself looking for answers and you doubted that claim.
#148
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,050
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
So what answers are you looking for?

The answers you do want to hear.

Or the answers you don't want to hear.
#149
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
The correct answers is what I want to hear.
#150
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,050
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
How will you know if they are correct?