Antitheist AMA

Author: Theweakeredge

Posts

Total: 351
#211
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
Can you not belive that the Joker does not exist and also be against him?
Nope. And neither can you. The entity that does not exist cannot be opposed, for there is no one nor no thing to oppose. That is not a cheap gotcha, that is logic. It is the logic of the inability to negate a negation.
Topic's author
#212
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Exactly!
Topic's author
#213
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@fauxlaw
Yes.... yes you can... I would rather there never be a joker, are you saying you would want there to be a joker? Are you saying its impossible to dislike fictional characters? You are just wrong, Like, I'm not sure how to be more frank, you absolutely can dislike something that doesn't exist, because the idea of it exists, and you can dislike the idea, and as that is the only thing you can operate your opinion about, you absolutely can dislike something that doesn't exist in one regard, because it does exist in another. Furthermore, this is about being against the notion of there being one, so its not in reference to it itself, but to the idea that it would exist... you are just so fallacious here, non-sequitur for the win there Fauxlaw, that its hard to tell if you're being serious.
#214
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
Whether a character is fictional, or not, is not the issue. Suspension of disbelief equalizes fiction and non-fiction. Within the context of a fictional or non-fictional story, the reader becomes an integral participant by reaction to the story. Therefore, all characters in it either exist, or do not. If a character is written out of the story by the reader, there is no longer an entity to oppose for that reader. The negation eliminates the need to deny existence, so one cannot have it both ways. 
#215
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@fauxlaw
Can you not believe that a DEEP-STATE-CONSPIRACY does not exist and also be against it?

Can you not believe that SATAN does not exist and also be against it?

I'm pretty sure you can be against any IDEA, regardless of whether or not the idea is an ACTUAL PERSON or simply AN ABSTRACT CONCEPT.
#216
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@fauxlaw
Within the context of a fictional or non-fictional story...
Can you be against the idea of SHIVA even if you personally don't believe in SHIVA?

Now imagine how you might feel if a bunch of SHIVA acolytes started passing pro-SHIVA laws in your town and or city?

I mean, why would you even care?
Topic's author
#217
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@fauxlaw
No. No they don't, for example - a story about General Zod, I haven't watched that movie, I know the idea of General Zod though, he's a tyrant and against superman, I am therefore against the idea of General Zod, even though he does not exist. You are trying to make up rules and connect things that don't connect, and make non-sequiturs, a couple examples:

Within the context of a fictional or non-fictional story, the reader becomes an integral participant by reaction to the story. Therefore, all characters in it either exist, or do not
No.. no it doesn't how does the reader becoming invested in a story lead you to the conclusion that a character exists, yes, the idea of the character exists, but not the actual character. For another example - I am very invested in Spider-Man's newest comic line (The Amazing Spiderman 2018), does that mean Peter Parker a.k.a Spider-Man exists? No. No it doesn't.


 If a character is written out of the story by the reader, there is no longer an entity to oppose for that reader.
Wrong! It is an idea of an entitiy, which you can oppose like you could real people, just because the character is declared as non-existent that does not mean you can't have feelings for or against that character, are you saying every time you read a comic book, you say "That character is real! Yup. In this world." No.. no you don't a suspension of disbelief is saying "I know you do not exist and this can not happen, but in order to have enjoyment, let's pretend that it does" It is predicated on the idea that that thing doesn't exist....
#218
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Dictionaries do not give different definitions for the same word. They would be useless if they did.
YES THEY DO.
Then what are dictionaries for Brut?

Which definition (specifically) do you think is "the correct" definition?
How can there be a "correct" definition when you say meaning just depends on which dictionary you use? 
#219
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Can you not believe
No, and neither can you. How do you prove a negative by opposing it?

I mean, why would you even care?
By choice.
#220
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
How can there be a "correct" definition when you say meaning just depends on which dictionary you use? 
I'm asking how YOU KNOW.

In debating terms, it's called "the principle of charity".

I'm letting you pick your personally preferred "correct" definition.

YOU get to set the "ground rules" so to speak.
#221
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
"God does not exist," you say, "therefore, I oppose him."

I reply: "How? If he does not exist, what exists to oppose it? There is no 'it' to oppose."

I am merely using your logic. It isn't.
#222
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@fauxlaw
No, and neither can you. How do you prove a negative by opposing it?
The point is that you can oppose an IDEA or an IDEOLOGY (like "theism" or "flat-earth") EVEN IFF you personally don't believe in it.
#223
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
Are you saying its impossible to dislike fictional characters?
Can I dislike the ideas (policy proposals) of people who think fictional characters are REAL?
#224
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
To oppose that which does not exist is a waste of effort. You've more important things to do. Logic has practicality.
#225
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@fauxlaw
Now imagine how you might feel if a bunch of SHIVA acolytes started passing pro-SHIVA laws in your town and or city?
#226
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Theweakeredge
Are you actually daft?
Perhaps. But I'm smart enough to have you running and dodging.

You don't think there can be more than one definition of a word? 
There are many definitions of a word. You just have to use the correct one. You're now stalling to hide that you're dodging.

And "subjective" still does not mean "non-existent". Imagine that.

Topic's author
#227
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@fauxlaw
I oppose the idea of god, as I have explained countless times. 
Topic's author
#228
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@ethang5
Dodging? It would be dodging if I didn't address your point or change the subject, you have yet to provide a cogent rebuttal, on top of that, you were the one who provided a red-herring of "actual vs not actual" that was your thing, and didn't address the thing at hand, furthermore, I provided a long, probably 15 line paragraph that I have not seen you even try to address, you seem to be the party "dodging" 
#229
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Now imagine how you might feel if a bunch of SHIVA acolytes started passing pro-SHIVA laws in your town and or city?
Shiva is cool as hell but I prefer laws to be secular. Though Shiva statues all over the place would be neat. 
#230
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,051
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
Proof would be fact....And Objective and subjective are brain derived concepts, as is morality.

Quoting fact is knowing the correct answers, and if you want to label it as objectivity then do so.... You can also label it Dave if you like.

Though the process of thought/quote production is exactly the same either way, but let's label it Samantha or subjectivity if you think that a difference occurs.

Acquired, stored and reissued data, perhaps modified.....And you either know the answers or you don't.


Perhaps you were told there was more than there really was.....Or perhaps you are looking for more than there really is.
#231
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
I discuss objective and subjective in great detail in my forum https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5467-what-i-realized

Feel free to take a look and comment if you like.
#232
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
And "subjective" still does not mean "non-existent". Imagine that.
If you were asked to describe an elephant, would you say, "not a hamburger"?
#233
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,051
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
Was that subjectivity or subjective objectivity?....Or are you just reissuing acquired stored and perhaps modified data.

How we variously interpret sound waves is all internal process, as is how we interpret taste, as is how we interpret visual input.

Personal morality or personal adherence to collective morality, is nothing more than personal output relative to acquired stored and perhaps modified data. Even if that process is influenced by external pressure or social oppression.
#234
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
@Theweakeredge
Note that I have challenged a debate on the subject of denial/opposition. I will leave remaining commentary in that venue.
Topic's author
#235
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@fauxlaw
Oh? Now I'm interested
#236
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
And "subjective" still does not mean "non-existent".
Are you familiar with the difference between an ABSTRACT noun and a CONCRETE noun?
#237
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
the difference between an ABSTRACT noun and a CONCRETE noun?
I have a PhD in English Lit
#238
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
@Theweakeredge
Dodging?
Yes. I am unsurprised that you deny it.

It would be dodging if I didn't address your point or change the subject,
Both you tried to do.

You are running. You are using a definition of "objective" that you claim is the opposite of subjective. It isn't. The foundational claim of your argument is wrong, there is no need for me to address anything past that point till you have fixed your thinking.

YOU used the word "actual". While that may in very narrow cases be a synonym for "objective", it is incorrect if you intend "objective" to be the opposite of "subjective". Your definition makes no logical sense.

To demonstrate this, please give us an example, by your definition, of something objective.

And "subjective" still does not mean "non-existent".
Are you familiar with the difference between an ABSTRACT noun and a CONCRETE noun?
"Blue" can be either an ABSTRACT noun or a CONCRETE noun, that doesn't mean that the definition of the word "blue" used to denote color would be correct in a discussion about depression. Droning that "it's in the dictionary!" would mean nothing. It would be incorrect usage.

If you were asked to describe an elephant, would you say, "not a hamburger"?
A definition is not a description. Theweakeredge defined "objective" as "actual". That is an incorrect definition of "objective" in a discussion about objective and subjective morality.

And I still say one does not window shop a dictionary. The correct definition of a word is determined by context. Without context, we will not know which is the "correct" one. Context makes some definitions of a word illogical, as a color definition of the word "blue" would be in a discussion about depression. In that case, "blue" would correctly be defined as "depressed" or "not happy". It would be incorrect to use "blue's" definition of color in that case, even though that definition IS "in the dictionary".

Theweakeredge is equivocating on the definition of "objective", and both Tarek and Fauxlaw have caught him on that error. 
Topic's author
#239
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@ethang5
Half of that wasn't addressed to me, but I A) Gave you several examples of things which are objective; water, cats (new example yaay), Cactus, Disco Balls, Stars, The Universe, ect, ect, all of those things are objective - things which are social constructs are subjective typically  - while some have routes in objectivity - the actual extrapolation is subjective. As you still haven't quoted when I said actual before you said it I doubt that, could have I used a throwaway word like actual at one point with more context? Sure, but it doesn't matter. I'll just concede that it doesn't exactly mean actual, but it does... and again, the as demonstrated by the definitions that you did not quote or reference, they are literally exact opposites. You can illogically ignore that fact, but that would be handwaving. You are actually dodging a proper rebuttal. 
#240
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Theweakeredge

Half of that wasn't addressed to me, but I A) Gave you several examples of things which are objective; water, cats (new example yaay), Cactus, Disco Balls, Stars, The Universe, ect, ect, all of those things are objective - things which are social constructs are subjective typically  - while some have routes in objectivity - the actual extrapolation is subjective.
When we say God's morality is objective, we aren't referring to whether its existence is concrete or not. Why is it difficult for you to understand that each definition of a word has a different meaning? Your definition of "objective" is incorrect in a discussion about objective morality.

And you still haven't quoted when I said actual before you said it I doubt that, could have I used a throwaway word like actual at one point with more context? Sure, but it doesn't matter. 
Subjective - "Dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence."
Objective - "Not dependent on the mind for existence; actual"
Post #204

I'll just concede that it doesn't exactly mean actual, but it does... and again, the as demonstrated by the definitions that you did not quote or reference, they are literally exact opposites. You can illogically ignore that fact, but that would be handwaving. You are actually dodging a proper rebuttal. 
Rebuttal to what? Your bogus definition? If I define "blue" as depressed in psychology, then the opposite of blue is happy. If I define "blue"  as a color in photography, then the opposite of blue is yellow. Using the psychological definition of "blue" in a discussion on photography is silly. That is what you are doing with "objective". You are using the incorrect definition for our discussion.

Water, Cats, Cactus, Stars, and the Universe are all dependent on the mind for their existence. The mind of God. They are not dependent on the mind of any man, and that is why they are objective to men. An objective morality is one from the mind of God, not able to be changed or influenced by any man. Whether you believe God exists or not, the logic holds.

If God existed, His morality would be objective morality, not derived from, or dependant on any man.