Antitheist AMA

Author: Theweakeredge

Posts

Total: 351
Topic's author
#241
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@ethang5
Do you know what the purpose of a semicolon is in a definition? Typically its to explain a draw a link between a phrase and one word, in this instance - "not dependent on the mind for existence" is synonymous with actual, therefore "dependent on the mind for existence" is the direct antonym for that meaning of actual. Second, explain how that definition is bogus. Your proper reasoning, it is in reference to abstract concepts like morality, why are you claiming it to be bogus? What is your reasoning for throwing away that definition?

You continue to assert that i'm using the wrong definition but have provided no reasoning for that - your claim that everything depends on the mind of god, demonstrate that claim. And also... no. Hypothetically speaking, if there were a god, he would create that with objectivity - the things to make it would exist, its not a product of that god's mind but their power or "omnipotence'. For example: I could create a model boat, that boat would still be objectively existent, it is not a direct product of my mind, it is one of my skill and hands. A machine could do that given the instruction without any need for a mind. 

what is your definition of objective? Not that you've provided any reasoning to say mine is bad besides your opinion,  but I'd like to hear yours since you hold it in such high regard
#242
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
A machine could do that given the instruction without any need for a mind. 
Great point.
#243
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@fauxlaw
I have a PhD in English Lit
I'm not sure why people insist on making unfalsifiable claims and or insist on DOXXING THEMSELVES.

#244
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
"Blue" can be either an ABSTRACT noun or a CONCRETE noun,
This is a great example.

by the way, "BLUE" is not a noun.

"BLUE" is (generally) a subjective property of an OBJECT AND NOT AN OBJECT ITSELF.

AN OBJECT can have the subjective property of appearing to be "BLUE" (under certain lighting conditions).

BUT THERE IS NO OBJECT THAT IS CALLED A "BLUE".

unless perhaps you named an object (or a person) "blue".

kindoflike how "ORANGE" can be an OBJECT and or a subjective property of an OBJECT depending on the context in which the word "ORANGE" happens to be employed.
#245
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
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.
"OBJECTIVE" AND "MORALITY" ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE TERMS.
#246
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
Please explain how your concept of "morality" qualifies as, "Not dependent on the mind for existence; actual"
#247
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
by the way, "BLUE" is not a noun.
Blue can be used as a noun.

OBJECTIVE" AND "MORALITY" ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE TERMS.
It depends on what sense "objective" is being used. Your self-serving definition of "objective" isnot the only definition of that word, and your understanding of it is not our roadmap.

Please explain how your concept of "morality" qualifies as, "Not dependent on the mind for existence; actual"
That isn't my concept. Please try to keep up. 
#248
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
It depends on what sense "objective" is being used.
Which sense do you want to use?

Your self-serving definition of "objective" isnot the only definition of that word, and your understanding of it is not our roadmap.
Which definition do you want to use?
#249
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Theweakeredge
Do you know what the purpose of a semicolon is in a definition? Typically its to explain a draw a link between a phrase and one word, in this instance - "not dependent on the mind for existence" is synonymous with actual, therefore "dependent on the mind for existence" is the direct antonym for that meaning of actual.
I know. But that is not the meaning of "objective" being used in the objective morality argument. Your definition is wrong... pay attention now.... for this argument. 

Second, explain how that definition is bogus. Your proper reasoning, it is in reference to abstract concepts like morality, why are you claiming it to be bogus? What is your reasoning for throwing away that definition?
I have explained it. You tried to dodge it. I am not "throwing away" your definition, I'm saying, now for the 5th time, that the word has several definitions, the one you are trying to use for this argument is the incorrect one. For example, when we say, "Fred is feeling blue today" and you try to use the definition of "blue" denoting color. That would be incorrect. Sure, that definition is in the dictionary, but that is not how the word "blue" was used. Your definition of "objective" was not how the word was used in the argument.

You continue to assert that i'm using the wrong definition but have provided no reasoning for that
I have, but you must read my posts. In the argument at hand, "objective" has nothing to do with "actual/existence". The argument is not using "objective" in that sense.

- your claim that everything depends on the mind of god, demonstrate that claim. 
I don't need to. I asked you, if God existed as the Bible says, would the morality of His mind be objective to men?" You answered "yes". That is the sense in which we are using "objective". My claim is coherant.

And also... no. Hypothetically speaking, if there were a god, he would create that with objectivity - the things to make it would exist, its not a product of that god's mind but their power or "omnipotence'. For example: I could create a model boat, that boat would still be objectively existent, it is not a direct product of my mind, it is one of my skill and hands. A machine could do that given the instruction without any need for a mind. 
God creates out of nothing. He needs no raw material. But that is not the point, and does not affect the argument, God's morality would still not be caused by, or influenced by, the mind of any man, thus, if God existed, God's morality would be objective for human beings.

what is your definition of objective? Not that you've provided any reasoning to say mine is bad besides your opinion,  but I'd like to hear yours since you hold it in such high regard
Objective - Not sourced from, dependant on, or influenced by the mind OF MAN, regardless of whether it is concrete or theoretical. 
Topic's author
#250
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@ethang5
Again, you haven't explained why my definition is bogus, you have claimed it is, again, but you haven't actually provided reasoning besides saying that words have different meanings. cool. Why is your appropriate and mine not? We are talking about an abstract, and where do you get that definition? It seems like you made it up to support your conclusion. :/
#251
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
Objective - Not sourced from, dependant on, or influenced by the mind OF MAN, regardless of whether it is concrete or theoretical. 
I love it.

Please explain to me what "theoretical" "thing" meets your qualification of "not sourced from the mind OF MAN"?
#252
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
Why is your appropriate and mine not?
What are you complaining about?

@ethang5 has provided a beautiful definition.

Objective - Not sourced from, dependant on, or influenced by the mind OF MAN, regardless of whether it is concrete or theoretical. 

It's almost impossible to get people to define their own terms.
#253
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
I asked you, if God existed as the Bible says, would the morality of His mind be objective to men?" You answered "yes". That is the sense in which we are using "objective". My claim is coherant.
The "moral code" of "YHWH" could only be considered "objective" if "YHWH" was defined as absolutely emotionless.
#254
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm not sure
Argue for your limitations, but they are not mine.
#255
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Please explain to me what "theoretical" "thing" meets your qualification of "not sourced from the mind OF MAN"?
The concept of God's morality.

The "moral code" of "YHWH" could only be considered "objective" if "YHWH" was defined as absolutely emotionless.
Illogical. God's code is objective TO MAN, as it is not sourced from, dependant on, or influenced by the mind OF any MAN, regardless of whether it is concrete or theoretical. God's emotional state is irrelevant. Objective does not mean, "emotion-free". This is the sense in which we use "objective" all the time when a 3rd party is brought in to arbitrate a case. No one inside the case makes the judgement.

You again wish to subject the claim to your bogus definition of "objective". That will not fly.

#256
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ethang5
I would suggest  that:

Objective is a subjective assumption.

And emotion is an internal electro-chemical response to an external stimulus.

And both, either are or are not, relative to a GOD principle......And to be fair your guess is as good as mine.....And we probably do agree in principle....But not quite so much in the detail.
#257
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@zedvictor4
I would suggest  that: Objective is a subjective assumption.
And some other bloke would suggest that the moon is made of green cheese. The point on a debate board is to show the logic supporting your suggestions. Now, your suggestion tells us you must be using private definitions of objective and subjective, or you must not be encumbered by any requirement to be logical. 

Which is it? 
#258
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ethang5
Well I'm taking the definition of subjective and applying it to the definition of objective, and vice versa...Within the context of function and process.

In terms of function and process, objective output is subjective....Even though content may vary.


Nonetheless, I think that it's fair to suggest that a concept based thread of this sort, typically relies upon assumption rather than fact anyway....Therefore objective is always a subjective assumption....Irrespective of ideology.





And the Moon is curious cheeeeese Grommit.
#259
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@zedvictor4
Well I'm taking the definition of subjective and applying it to the definition of objective,...
So not encumbered by any requirement to be logical eh? Thanks for saving me some time.

Good day sir. 
#260
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ethang5
Good morning Sir.



Not encumbered by  certain conditioned ideologies that defy logic.

The reasons, if any, for function and process are currently unknown, but are continually speculated about.


14 days later

#261
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
Greetings. This is my strong topic and I wish to have a constructive discussion. I am not out to disagree, but rather find where we agree and build from there. I see that your "anti" is built on valid moral objections. I actually agree with you in that god should not control the universe. I will use the word "god" to mean "any single god" - as gods is illogical (another debate).


As far as I understand, this is your logic:
  1. Evil exists is in humans
  2. God controls the world
  3. God is the cause of evil in humans
So you reject God because you believe that moral responsibility falls on humans rather than God. Correct? I will assume so.

This is sound logical reasoning. However, the conclusion doesn't add up when you consider the alternatives. First of all, we can instantly rule out the possibility of another supernatural thing than god, because a non-personal force would be indistinguishable from a natural law of physics. Any angel or spirit would just be to add to the complexity to the question, without carrying real value for most people. The only option left is naturalism - which is obviously your position of choice. Let us define naturalism:

The philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted [lexico.com/naturalism]
I will now rephrase your position from what I claimed earlier:

  • Only if god does not control the universe can moral responsibility fall on the individual
  • Moral responsibility falls on the individual - this is our wish anyways
  • Therefore, we wish that god does not exist
Again, this is sound logic.  I agree, except, the conclusion is no the only possible conclusion. Naturalism is the idea that all things in the universe are controlled by forces within the universe - am I wrong? Since you believe in morality and naturalism your view is that morality is a product of naturalism. So your view is rather than naturalism, not atheism, is a prerequisite for moral responcibility falling on humans. Again, I do not object. But here comes my position:

  1. naturalistic forces can create moral responsibility - a god cannot
  2. god can create a world that is naturalistic in nature
  3. god can create moral responsibility indirectly

In other words: since Deism is indistinguishable from atheism in its practical conclusions the existence of a god would NOT undermine your moral beliefs.

We can further conclude that since intellectual theism is basically deism, theism does not undermine your moral beliefs.


The only type of theism that would actually undermine your moral beliefs would be theistic determinism: the idea that god controls all human action.


I am eager to hear your thoughts. Again, let us forget religion and instead focus on the direct implications of each idea. After all "theology" is not necessarily the correct interpretation of the ideas the religions brought to the table. I wish we could take an agnostic stance and build from there. I am writing too much, sorry.
Topic's author
#262
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Benjamin
No, that was not my logic, that is your strawman for an easy "critque" which gets annoying, but anyways, I barely have any time to interact with these forum posts recently. I only barely finished my debate round in time for the abortion debate, so I'll respond more in depth later.
#263
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Benjamin
Any angel or spirit would just be to add to the complexity to the question, without carrying real value for most people.
Well stated.
#264
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Benjamin
The only type of theism that would actually undermine your moral beliefs would be theistic determinism: the idea that god controls all human action.
Strict determinism is perfectly compatible with "atheist" "moral beliefs".
#265
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
Please explain to me what "theoretical" "thing" meets your qualification of "not sourced from the mind OF MAN"?
The concept of God's morality.
Please explain, "The concept of God's morality".
#266
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
God's emotional state is irrelevant. Objective does not mean, "emotion-free".
ob·jec·tive | \ əb-ˈjek-tiv  , äb- \
Definition of objective
 (Entry 1 of 2)
1a: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations [LINK]
#267
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@fauxlaw
the difference between an ABSTRACT noun and a CONCRETE noun?
I have a PhD in English Lit
Well, this should be easy for you.
#268
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Strict determinism is perfectly compatible with "atheist" "moral beliefs".
Yes. But not compatible with a justful God. If God judges your actions but he is responsible for them - that is hypocrisy from God's side.

Free will is a necessity for responsibility. I cannot just force you to steal my car and afterwards punish you for doing that. I think that is T.W.E's complaint.
#269
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
This is a common critique against religions like Islam - the determinism is seen as "Allah" is unjust. This obviously would be the case if that is the correct interpretation of Islam.

But most certainly - any world view would include determinism if we define is as: "the idea that the future could be 100% predicted with proper knowledge of the past". 
Topic's author
#270
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Benjamin
Center point - realistically speaking - the god's actions in the bible do not align with the supposed characteristics of said god, therefore those gods do not exist - realistically, anything with unlimited power would be corrupted unlimitedly, that is how power works. Especially unchecked power. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. If you read my point that is my main point.