-->
@Jasmine
Yes I was, and the fact that I had no evidence to support them.
Antitheist AMA
Posts
Total:
351
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
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
Do you mean this post? That is factually incorrect, I already addressed this claim. I never claimed that all theists hate you, in fact, this had literally nothing to do with the gay thing. IN fact, the only reason that thread was started (as you would know if you actually read it) was to gauge what people would do if there god ordered them to do something, apparently a lot of them would suddenly become skeptics whenever they didn't agree with what "god" was telling them. You didn't make a cogent point, and it so full of assumptions and holes, I had presumed you'd already moved past this one. If you wanna stick with your bad arguments, have fun with that, you are incorrect.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Yet you admit to being an antitheist so I'm not incorrect. Thanks.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Yes I am an anti-theist, but as I pointed out, that does not necessarily mean that you hate theists. That is you assuming what an antitheist is without actually looking into it
-->
@Theweakeredge
I could just give you my definition - "Not dependent on the mind for existence; actual" - I use this definition because of the topic specifically:
Words can have more than one meaning. You seem to be using "objective" as synonymous with "actual", when you know in common usage, that is not the usual definition of objective. Observe.
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?
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.
Subjective as opposed to "objective", having nothing to do with "actual".
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?
the same as above, which, again, isn't quite what I'm talking about
But it is what the claim that only God is objective is about! The claim is saying that only God's morality is free from the influence of man's emotion, not that only God's morality is actual. You are being equivocal with the definition.
If God did exist the way the Bible says, would the thoughts of His mind be "objective" to men?
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,...
Well, if we are using the orthodox definition of "objective", not from the mind of man thus free from subjective human emotion, God's morality would be "objective" and what "basis" He used for it would be immaterial.
...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
It is only one definition of a word with many definitions, not a "rule". And certainly not one that can be coherantly applied to God. You are trying to restrict the discussion to an incorrect definition of "objective".
Hopefully that helps clear things up
It did, but you are simply wrong. When we say God's morality is objective, we mean it is free from the subjectivity of man. It is this subjectivity which makes it wrong for one person's morality to be forced on another. It is this subjectivity which makes each person's morality of equal authority to all others.
...being god doesn't somehow make god not have a mind, and exempt from the rule
A God who is subject to "rules" created by his creation is incoherent. God existed before the "rule". If we posit God, subjecting Him to the "rule" is illogical. It attempts to change who God is. The word Objective in our discussion does not mean actual.
-->
@ethang5
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.
-->
@Tarik
Function and output.
Functionally, there is no difference between subjectivity and objectivity, in terms of process.
Output is up for scrutiny and so can be labelled accordingly.
And you typically redirected the thread...So what is it that you don't know, and require answers too?....Perhaps I can enlighten you.
-->
@Theweakeredge
I feel that a god would do more harm than good - and this especially applies to the incantations that theists believe in.
Are you generally anti-authoritarian?
Do you find the idea of decentralized control appealing?
-->
@ethang5
The word Objective in our discussion does not mean actual.
Please make your personally preferred definition(s) EXPLICIT.
-->
@Theweakeredge
that does not necessarily mean that you hate theists.
Excellent point.
-->
@3RU7AL
-->@Theweakeredge
that does not necessarily mean that you hate theists.
Excellent point.
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.
-->
@zedvictor4
Functionally, there is no difference between subjectivity and objectivity, in terms of process.
What’s the process?
Output is up for scrutiny and so can be labelled accordingly.
So according to this discussion what is it labeled?
So what is it that you don't know, and require answers too?
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.
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.
The whole point is that "anti-theist" is against the idea of a THESITIC GOD.
NOT "against" humans.
It's kind of like saying you're "anti-fascist".
Or "anti-racist".
-->
@Theweakeredge
To deny the existence of God [atheism], yet to be against, or opposed to God [antitheist] is an oxymoron.
-->
@Theweakeredge
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.
No you cannot. I am saying your definition is wrong FOR THIS CASE. When "objective" is defined as synonymous with "actual", it is NOT the opposite of subjective. Subjective NEVER means " not actual". It has nothing to do with preference.
Its not like I just made these definitions up out of thin air with no relation to the other dictionaries.
The definition of "blue" when it means "depressed" is in the dictionary, but because it's in the dictionary doesn't mean it is correct to use it in a discussion on the color of a car. The definition of "objective" you are using, has nothing to do with subjectivity, it has to do with existence. You have the right word but the wrong definition.
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.
They are not only better, they are also correct if by "objective" we mean, not subjective.
That just doesn't apply. I specified that in your examples, you were describing a different sort of subjectivity than I was,...
My examples did not mention subjectivity. I was using objectivity. I was using objective as the opposite of subjective. You were using objective as the opposite of not actual. That is deception.
I don't care if you don't like that fact,...
My like or dislike does nothing to repair your error.
you have yet to convince me that you actually apply the criticism of others "not being logical" onto yourself.
There is no need for me to convince you of that.
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.
Lol. I will leave the illogical mess above as I need not touch it. Perfection has nothing to do with it, authority does. I don't even know what a "perfect" rule would be. God is not "people". Parents are not subject to the same rules as their children, police are not subject to the same rules as their populations, God is not subject to the same rules as His creation. It is not a new or radical concept.
The way you are defining "objective" has nothing to do with morality, and cannot correctly be applied to morality. Your definition renders the word illogical inside a discussion on morality.
-->
@3RU7AL
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.
-->
@3RU7AL
The word Objective in our discussion does not mean actual.
Please make your personally preferred definition(s) EXPLICIT
Definition 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.
-->
@ethang5
Has anyone ever been so blatantly wrong that you wanted to laugh? Because that's kind of what I wanna do at you, "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.
-->
@fauxlaw
Can you not belive that the Joker does not exist and also be against him? Like what? I can not like a fictional character, are you being serious? Is this your "oh so logical" reaction here? A cheap gotcha that doesn't actually follow through?
-->
@Tarik
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 present your personally preferred definition of "objective".
-->
@ethang5
Funny how you are the one who is incorrect, not even a little incorrect, but as incorrect as you can be.
-->
@ethang5
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.
THERE IS MORE THAN ONE DICTIONARY ON THE PLANET EARTH.
ALMOST EVERY SINGLE WORD HAS MORE THAN ONE DEFINITION.
WHICH ONE DO YOU USE?
-->
@Theweakeredge
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.
WE MUST DEMAND HOLACRACY + RCV.
-->
@Theweakeredge
"Never means not actual" Really?
I said, "Subjective NEVER means " not actual". Yes really.
You think that? You weren't paying attention were you?
I saw you had to dishonestly edit my comment. I was paying enough attention.
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"
"Actual" is not the opposite of subjective in any logical sense. If you include God, then NOTHING is "objective". And if nothing is objective, then nothing is subjective either. Your definition is incoherent.
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 definition is incorrect for this argument. No one is talking about the existence of objectivity, the question is, can a morality be objective.
Your next claim "has nothing to do with existence" is hilarious whenever both definitions are setting up conditionals for existence.
We do not need definitions for existence. We need a definition for "objective", not "actual".
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.
No matter how you contort, "objective", the opposite of "subjective", does not mean " actual". Your "objective" is the opposite of "non-existent" , not the opposite of "subjective". You "prefer" that definition because it hides your pretence that your "objective" is the opposite of subjective.
-->
@3RU7AL
THERE IS MORE THAN ONE DICTIONARY ON THE PLANET EARTH.
Dictionaries do not give different definitions for the same word. They would be useless if they did.
ALMOST EVERY SINGLE WORD HAS MORE THAN ONE DEFINITION.
I know. I have been the one saying so. The correct definition must be used. One is not free to cherry-pick amount the various definitions of a word.
WHICH ONE DO YOU USE?
I was addressing the definition used by theweakeredge, not suggesting one of my own.
-->
@ethang5
Dictionaries do not give different definitions for the same word. They would be useless if they did.
YES THEY DO.
-->
@ethang5
DId you not pay attention to the definitions that I linked? I could care less about how you think is logically coherent, you've already shown yourself not the best at that. The difference isn't whether it's actual or not, you have missed the point - morality is "actual" in a manner of speaking - its what that actuallity is dependent on that makes the separation. The difference is whether something depends on the mind or not, just because you can't understand why this works doesn't mean it doesn't work. The two definitions are directly opposite... again, it seems to me that you are too stuck in your biases to make a coherent argument. According to the actual definitions these two definitions are opposite, now, is there another set of definitions for objective and subjective? Yes! And they are the ones you are talking about; however, those definitions are more apt for speaking of bias, not the origin of an abstract concept like Morality. Morality is a thing made up of principles pitted against each other, so what differenciates one moral system from another is which principle and why, but these principles are subjective, they are preferred over one another based on humans being consciousness, I suppose from your vague use of "actual" you could argue that the subjective I'm using means not-actual, but there is a distinction between a philosophic, conceptual actual, and a physical one. That is the difference, from the latter's perspective - yes the meaning of subjective could refer to "non-actual" but because there are subjective moral networks, that doesn't work does it? You can actually still describe these things, as again, Moralities are conceptual and abstract - not things like water or buildings, therefore the take I've used it more topical. Notice how I actually put thought into this? Unlike you. What is that rambling of god? Obviously things are objective - the computer or phone you're typing on is objectively real, the chair you could sit on is objectively real. Etc, etc.. The "experience problem" in which people try to make a separation between the experience of seeing the color red, and the actual depiction of red, waves of light being absorbed or reflected, are just the difference between something which exists subjectively, dependent on the mind, and something objective. I wasn't saying that if a god existed, they wouldn't objectively exist, I'm saying that if the origin of their moral system is themselves, then it wouldn't objective. You can have something subjective come from something objective, in fact, as a mind/brain is objective, you necessarily have to. Being dishonest? That's rich coming from you, I was implying the main point, that you thought that subjective doesn't mean not-actual, whereas you take the time to cut out large chunks of my argument, and don't even argue appropriately, either missing, ignoring, or hand waving the objections away.
-->
@ethang5
The correct definition must be used.
Which definition (specifically) do you think is "the correct" definition?
-->
@ethang5
Are you actually daft? You don't think there can be more than one definition of a word? Wow oh wow, you must be arrogant, do you think that there is only one type of god? Do you not understand basic language? Time for a middle school lesson:
"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)."
There is literally a category of words that are the same and mean different things.
Do you think that every word means the same thing to everybody? Yes - there can be one preferred definition whenever we are speaking on one topic or part of that subject, but each subject can have a different meaning of the same word that are just as valid, depending on the context. Proof, for example, means something different whenever discussing philosophic proofs and mathematic proofs. They are similar but not exactly the same.
-->
@Theweakeredge
"Morality" is an abstract noun which is in direct contrast with a concrete noun.