-->
@Jasmine
Yes I was, and the fact that I had no evidence to support them.
Not sure hating all theists helps you make any point about how theists all hate you. Since there are many religions who are not anti homosexual
I could just give you my definition - "Not dependent on the mind for existence; actual" - I use this definition because of the topic specifically:
In this case- we are talking about being able to judge a case without influence from their emotions. Which is the other definition of subjective.
the same as above, which, again, isn't quite what I'm talking about
Well, if we were to assume that god had some sort of basis that he was using, yes that would be objective - if we are just talking about his mind? No,...
...if something comes from him, as in an idea, then it would be subjective without an objective basis, being god doesn't somehow make god not have a mind, and exempt from the rule
Hopefully that helps clear things up
...being god doesn't somehow make god not have a mind, and exempt from the rule
I feel that a god would do more harm than good - and this especially applies to the incantations that theists believe in.
The word Objective in our discussion does not mean actual.
that does not necessarily mean that you hate theists.
that does not necessarily mean that you hate theists.
Functionally, there is no difference between subjectivity and objectivity, in terms of process.
Output is up for scrutiny and so can be labelled accordingly.
So what is it that you don't know, and require answers too?
Why is that only atheist can say they are anti a whole group of people and not hate them but any other group who said that would be called out on it.
Yes, there are different definitions of the word objective, and I could care less if you prefer that definition, I was referring to my case regarding subjective morality that objective and subjective terms I got from the Lexico dictionary the Oxford English and Spanish Dictionary, therefore is a definition I can use perfectly justifiably.
Its not like I just made these definitions up out of thin air with no relation to the other dictionaries.
I will correct you, your definitions are much more in line with the colloquial use of the words, but that does not inherently mean that the colloquial definitions are the "better" definitions.
That just doesn't apply. I specified that in your examples, you were describing a different sort of subjectivity than I was,...
I don't care if you don't like that fact,...
you have yet to convince me that you actually apply the criticism of others "not being logical" onto yourself.
By the way, you are supporting monarchy.... or are you saying that, generally speaking, people who create the rules aren't subject to them? Because if a "perfect being" makes rules then they are perfect, and should apply to everyone.... because they are necessarily perfect. Like... even if you tried to argue that "humans aren't perfect" apparently we were kinda then humans messed up. So.... not really perfect there. Of course you could argue that god.... intentionally made imperfect rules? Yeah... I think you should start to get the contradictions in your rhetoric.
Please make your personally preferred definition(s) EXPLICIT
For the sake of discussion let’s assume morality and its nature, if you presume it’s subjective then a naysayer has a right to ask for proof but proof goes against subjectivity making it fundamentally impossible because proof is objective.
Please make your personally preferred definition(s) EXPLICITDefinition of words are established. I choose the correct definition, I do not cherry-pick based on my personal preference. I was telling theweakeredge that his definition is incorrect, not offering one of my own.
I am typically very anti-authoratarian, even in the best circumstances - let's say the person is really nice, cares about their "country" or "nation" or whatever - Running a country is hard from what I've read they can become very easily overworked, even good people are manipulatable, whenever one person is in charge of everything typically there aren't people checking their work, so they make more mistakes.... but.... even "good" people can be wrong, and can be corrupted by literally being the king of everything. To be clear, that won't even be the case most of the time, and even if, let's like in Rome, you start off with a "good" or at the very least successful dictator, it is not very likely that will last. Decentralized Control? Hmm.... I'd have to do more research to answer for sure, but from what I've read it seems appealing.
"Never means not actual" Really?
You think that? You weren't paying attention were you?
This is the definition I was referencing, and just for you, I'll put em side by side, just so you can connect the two, I know it can be a bit hard for you at times:Subjective - "Dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence."Objective - "Not dependent on the mind for existence; actual"
The two are as opposite as they could be, please, before you try to make an assertion that is so easily fact checked, actually fact check! It's not that hard, or even, go back a page or two, and read of the tens of times I provided the definition of subjective here! This is only one claim in and I'm already in awe of how incorrect you are.
Your next claim "has nothing to do with existence" is hilarious whenever both definitions are setting up conditionals for existence.
Again, you have literally no idea what you're talking about - are you trying to call me illogical? Yet you can't look further than your own assumptions? Thats pretty unreasonable.
THERE IS MORE THAN ONE DICTIONARY ON THE PLANET EARTH.
ALMOST EVERY SINGLE WORD HAS MORE THAN ONE DEFINITION.
WHICH ONE DO YOU USE?
Dictionaries do not give different definitions for the same word. They would be useless if they did.
The correct definition must be used.
"HOMOGRAPHS are words that are spelled the same but have different meanings. Heteronyms are a type of homograph that are also spelled the same and have different meanings, but sound different. WORDS THAT BOTH SOUND THE SAME AND ARE SPELLED THE SAME are both homonyms (same sound) and homographs (same spelling)."