Antitheist AMA

Do you not remember all of my lectures about the two different definitions of subjective? Are you that biased? Note how nothing you said actually refuted my points, its just you repeating the same tired BS over and over again, that I put down in our Dm, that I put down in the other thread, and I'll it again here. (Side note - did you not read it? Did you fail to notice that the only part you responded to had "final" in the title, that implies there were arguments prior to it, you gonna respond to those?). I have already answered the questions about appeals to emotion and demonstrated how YOU DO NOT NEED ANY EMOTIONAL ARGUMENTS, whatsoever to argue for subjectivity. You have not provided a single shred of evidence that I used emotion whatsoever besides mere speculation that isn't even reasoned correctly. Please, try again. You have failed to make ANY points here. After I stopped responding to you in the other thread, I thought I was being a bit harsh, but I see I was wrong to give you the benefit of the doubt again. You now have two options, you can A) Continue on in your never ending red herring chase, and be blocked by me immediately after, or B) Actually engage in the argument I presented and not bring up something I have already disproven twice.

So you admit that you don't care what the truth is? You just want to confirm your own bias? You have one post to inform me if this is correct.

If they make sense.

Okay then what arguments can you make that murder is subjectively wrong that isn’t emotional I have yet to hear it, and isn’t proof objective? Therefore proving subjective morality’s existence is fundamentally impossible yet you believe in it anyway with no proof.

And how will you know that?.... Unless you have a predefined standard to measure them against.

Perhaps you are not looking for answers, but are looking for qualification of your own preconditioned standards.

Have you been.... first off, I hear no responses to anything else, I'm gonna need you to demonstrate those positions before you try to strawman me. Second of all - Murdering being wrong? It's objectively wrong IF and ONLY IF you accept the subjective premise that people's well-being matters. Even if you only accept that your own position matters. I don't actually have to demonstrate that to you because I already did, a while ago, in DMs and in the other forum. But for another thing, you've ignored me again. So here's your last chance buddy, demonstrate your claims and stop with the repetitive red herrings.

Did you mean to say subjectively wrong?

No, and your post count is up. I think I've made my point clear, as has Zed. Its been clear to me now that this has been a waste of my time. Have a good night.

Then my retort to that is objective things are proven external from one’s mind so it doesn’t matter what they accept.

Yep. But how do you know what is logical?........Unless

Any answer I give I’m sure will lead to more questions so I’ll just give a circular answer, you know somethings logical if it makes sense. But seriously what’s the point of these questions unless your doubting humans ability to detect logic, because if that’s the case we wouldn’t be able to comprehend anything.

But how do you "know"?

The answers are in the question.....One can only know something, if one knows something....That is to say, if one already possesses an established database.

You certainly do not have a head that is void of preconditioned knowledge.

You already know what you think....You already know what is logical to you....You already know what makes sense to you.

So do you want to have your mind changed?....Or are you looking for confirmation and agreement?....Or are you just looking to argue the toss with those that might disagree?

So when you said “then anything might or might not mean anything” the only way one can come to a conclusion regarding meaning is through an answer, so I don’t know why your acting like discovering answers is an impossible task.

Discovering new information maybe....But you already have the answers to the questions that you want answering....Unless you are a blank canvas of course....But I don't think that is the case.

New information might make you change your mind or reassess your preconditioned database.....But how likely is that?.....Not very likely, I would suggest.

I'm trying to get a better idea of what objective means to you.

 

1. Usually, when a judge is recused because he cannot be considered "objective", as in say, a case where his his mother is a defendant, what does "objective" mean in such a situation?

2. If a company has developed a course of action (a plan) how to go about manufacturing a new technological device, and hires an outside consulting firm to  to give them an "objective" evaluation of that plan, what does "objective" mean in such a situation?

3. If God did exist the way the Bible says, would the thoughts of His mind be "objective"  to men? 

You may go into detail if you want, but a yes or no will also suffice.

Sorry you don't use antitheists then explain how you don't really mean antitheists. LOL

I’m going to return the question you’ve been asking me back to you because the only way you can know this claim is through objectivity (which you doubt) otherwise how do you know this?

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

Except, I had quoted probably one of the most famous anti-theists.... which would be Christopher Hitchens, try again, this is you assuming your conclusion and trying to hand wave away other conclusions.

Right.  Antitheists.

Uh huh, its a bit of a misnomer, so what? 

Let's take a look at this "theism" means the belief in a "personal" god, "anti" means against or not, therefore - against the belief in a god, I suppose you could interpret that differently than I have, but I feel that i have also interpreted it correctly. 

Antitheist not theism. No going back now. I see not need to keep arguing your own words with you. 

I never claimed it was.... It seems to me that you were being a contrarian, but whenever someone at all criticized you, you refuse to make an argument.... oh no, who does that remind me of.

No clue why don't you say instead of trying to be cool. I made my argument. The topic is by you and it's states I am antitheist. That is people. Have a nice day. 

Yes... it does say that I'm an antitheist.... that was my point, everything you've declared is lacking syntax and structure, so I'm really not sure what your point is.

Then why are you arguing if you agree you are anti theists(people). 

You claimed, and I quote

I simply pointed out that, yes I did use an Antitheist. "Explain how you don't really mean antitheist" implies that I argued somehow that I didn't really mean antitheist, or that you don't agree with what I claimed to be an antitheist. You made an assertion that, made little sense even when I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and you don't seem inclined to ever explain yourself, only to laugh at those who you disagree with - with... no proper argumentation

If you are too lazy to go back and see where this started that's on you.