Antitheist AMA

Well we don’t live in a world of what ifs we live in a world of what is and what is is God exists, do you agree with that? If not how do you prove

Didn't God let his only son be killed?

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. 

Well if he’s in heaven I guess that beats being stuck on earth with ignorant atheists.

Then demonstrate that it's objective, as far as I can tell - morality is subjective, prove otherwise - or substantiate your objections against my syllogism

Did... did you not read my og post? I literally had a quote that way my meaning wouldn't be mis-interpreted. I do not hate all theists, nor have I ever said that I did. I said, "I think it is better that no god exists." That is what an anti-theist is. Please read next time

The problem is you assume that harming humans is wrong, thats still a subjective value

I did with a question, unless this 

Was the answer? Which I ask for clarification because I don’t know if your answering a question with a question.

I put it in a question because I thought that was obvious. How else would you test well-being? I think that empirical results are one of the best ways to do that, they have given us several, not only technological, but medical break throughs, I think they'd suffice.

Did you read my last post on your well-being argument?

I answered your question, we would use empirical testing to descover what is most beneficial, its not like we're behind in this regard, and we have the fundamental building blocks to argue against most of the immoral stuff. I mean obviously people don't like this for lots of reasons, some feel that they need an agent giving moral commands, but that is quite literally tyranny. Some are biased against certain things (homophobes, transphobes, racists, bigots in general) and don't like that the empirical results come back differently from what they believe, but they have been very useful for humanity as a whole, expecially in improving the quality of life, and lowering infanticide. 

But isn’t empirical results objective?

Yes, the means of verifying something is objective, its the framing that is subjective as I have reminded you countless times, it is the framing that something beneficial to humans is good and something negative to humans is bad, that framing is subjective - but you can still build on top of that subjective morality with objective oughts, based on this presumption we can say x or y. As long as you agree that we should care about any person's wellbeing (even if you only care for your own) this morality can apply.

Not really considering along those lines that’s how those terms are defined I mean will you really argue against someone defining good as beneficial and bad as negative?

Yes. Yes I would - because those are assertions, not philosophic objective truths

So semantics isn’t an objective truth?

Semantics? No. Semantics are meant to give context to circumstantial claims - which is the perspective that they can be useful in argument, the problem is that we are speaking of fundamental truths and whether they are actual. So no, I don't think so - especially in this context.

Semantics is a fundamental truth though.

They can be, but that isn't necessarily true - "Relating to meaning in language or logic." So while some semantics can be related to logic, not all are.

...But language is a fundamental truth and so is logic.

What? First of all, language is probably the least fundamental of any "truth", its extremely relative and depends on the definition and the argument specifically, hence why I said "contextual" I'm sorry but you are fundamentally mistaken if you think that language is a fundamental truth. Logic is more so, but thats still a presumption, obviously its a self-evident assumption, since in order to critisize it you have to use logic, but both of these fall flat of fundamental truths. 

Contextualization is also a fundamental truth, I notice every time you attempt to defend your point you dig yourself deeper by introducing more objectivity.

You know what? no. Demonstrate that. Substantiate your claim. You've made an assertion, "Contextualization is a fundamental truth". Before we go any further, I want you to substantiate one claim that you've made today, and I'd like you to start with that one,

Okay so if I said they won the game then that statement is misleading because I didn’t address context, now if I said they won the game because they cheated then the narrative is completely different because context is a fundamental truth that exists and in this context cheating is the fundamental truth.

That doesn't support your claim, you've given an example of context... not demonstrated that it is more than a concept. "The circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood." This is shifting, the context is always different, are you arguing that context exists? Because yes, it does, but it doesn't have anything to do with objective or fundamental truths which don't change. My point was that, like the context which is also changing, language is. Hence my point. By the way, you never got back to me about language. Do you think that pointing out something about context you've somehow rebutted my point about language not being a fundamental truth, I mean, obviously language is something which exists, but its something which is highly interpretable. This is the type of thing that is subject to your definition of subjective.

Okay so give me an example of context changing, and what’s the purpose of semantics if people are just going to interpret things the way they want to? Can it be that some interpretations are just wrong?

While some are correct, thats how interpretations work, my point is that there are multiple interpretations

That doesn’t matter if they’re all wrong.

Do you have any way to substantiate that only one interpretation of any context is correct? Because that is a large assertion there, that you would have to demonstrate. My point is - you are grasping at straws here. "Semantics are a fundamental truth" is not only wrong, but not the point. We're talking about the view that things benefiting humans are good and things causing negatives towards them is bad, thats a subjective take. If you want to stay on topic, we can discuss that, unless you want to continue on this path that will inevitably lead to me calling you out for being pedantic again, and not addressing my main points... again.