The great atheist deception

Author: Soluminsanis
Religion
Philosophy

Posts

Total: 204
#31
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tarik
No - you are saying something is true  - you have this assumption that that means its objectively true - it could also mean its true to you (subjectively) it could also mean your confident something is true, it could mean that you're wrong, you are being needlessly limiting.
#32
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
you have this assumption that that means its objectively true
No I don’t I’ve made it abundantly clear a plethora of times that that’s not what I think, stop putting words in my mouth unless you have a direct quote of me saying everything stated as fact is fact, you’re doing nothing but filibustering.

it could also mean its true to you (subjectively)
That’s not what stated as fact means, if that were the case the definition would’ve said stated as opinion, but it doesn’t because morality can’t be stated as an opinion.

you are being needlessly limiting.
It’s not as complicated as you’re trying to make it out to be, when you state something as fact the only logical reason to do so is because you believe it as such (yes I’m very well aware that it not always is) that’s why I made it personal with you because you’re guilty of the exact thing you’re deeming as wrong, judging by your premise you affirm morality ergo state as fact so whatever view you have your stating as fact even though according to you it’s not which makes no sense. 
#33
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tarik
Being a fact does not mean something which is true objectively - it means something which is proven true - you seem to not understand that simple simple concept. It is not me making this more complicated then it needs to be, thats you, in fact I've continously simplified so that you understand.

How about this - I concede all of the former argument and I only put in this argument

You can not derive an is from an ought, nor an ought from an is
#34
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
One can affirm anything......Affirming can be as meaningful or meaningless as one chooses.
#35
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Soluminsanis
If atheism is true.....Is just a meaningless statement.

Atheism is atheism and theism is theism.


This forum is just another theist deception.
#36
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
Being a fact does not mean something which is true objectively - it means something which is proven true 
...Isn’t proof objective? Have you ever heard of subjective proof?

You can not derive an is from an ought, nor an ought from an is
I don’t even know how this is correlated.
#37
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tarik
Yes - proof which is true dependent on the mind. Again, your inability to grasp this is staggering.
#38
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
How so? Your the one that said facts aren’t true objectively and only proven as if there’s some distinction between objectivity and proof. You’re so inconsistent in your dialogue it’s staggering.
#39
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
One can affirm anything......Affirming can be as meaningful or meaningless as one chooses.
Well you can’t choose it to be meaningless if you’re affirming it because of it was truly meaningless to you you wouldn’t affirm it in the first place.
#40
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tarik
There is - there is a difference between subjective and objective truth. Therefore there is a difference between objective and subjective proof. Your stubbornness to accept it doesn't change the fact.

Again.

You cannot get an ought from an is.
#41
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
Check your dictionary....Other than as a legal term "to affirm" carries very little weight.

Otherwise, one will affirm a lie...If one suspects that it will achieve a result.
#42
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Intelligence_06
P2: The closest we have got to "objective proof" of god is just ambiguous things that could be done by a god but could also occur naturally, there is no direct and objective proof of god yet
no, infinite regresses cant happen naturally, thats why the KCM is sound
#43
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
There is - there is a difference between subjective and objective truth. Therefore there is a difference between objective and subjective proof. Your stubbornness to accept it doesn't change the fact.
What is that difference? And unless you can substantiate the claim that theirs subjective proof then it isn’t a fact regardless of your stubbornness to accept that.

You cannot get an ought from an is.
What’s the ought and is in this case?
#44
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
Check your dictionary....Other than as a legal term "to affirm" carries very little weight.
Are you affirming that? Because if it’s so little to you then why bother?

Otherwise, one will affirm a lie...If one suspects that it will achieve a result.
Not in the case of morality, what result would lying achieve here?
#45
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tarik
In general you cannot get a moral claim from objective descriptions of reality - hume's guillotine. 

Furthermore - I have clarified this several times - objective as in something which is true independent of the mind - subjective something which is dependent on the mind for truth. You simply don't know what you're talking about, and this is even further emphasized by your continuous coping of my words to try to mock me, have fun being uncreative, how about a response that isn't, "I don't understand the thing you've clarified 30 times over"
#46
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
subjective something which is dependent on the mind for truth.
Correction the definition didn’t say truth it said existence.

In general you cannot get a moral claim from objective descriptions of reality - hume's guillotine.
Like you said “I could care less about your appeal to authority” for Hume.
#47
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tarik
You do realize that that's the same as saying, "ah, the red herring, first noticed by this guy, therefore this is an appeal to authority." This isn't me saying that because Hume said it its true, I'm saying, it is impossible to derive an ought from an is, not without another ought, a goal - a subjective one. Again that's what i'm talking about. Next, you are being absolutely pedantic, so first you claim to not know then you bring up that? That means you are being purposely semantic. Either answer the criticism or this conversation ends. Again. I though maybe you might actually try to be intellectually honest for once. Turns out I was wrong.
#48
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
You can not derive an is from an ought, nor an ought from an is
Assuming that oughts exist (God) yes you can because He teaches us that we ought to value human life that’s why murder is illegal. On the other hand if God doesn’t exist then yes I agree there is no ought and the nihilists are correct (but your not a nihilist so).
#49
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tarik
Wrong - here's the hidden assumption and the ought - You ought to value god's teachings/decisions/ whatever you wanna call them. That is still an ought, you cannot get an ought from an is. 
#50
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
you cannot get an ought from an is.
So what’s the is you can’t get an ought from?
#51
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tarik
Any is - you cannot get an prescription of reality from a description of reality. 
#52
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
So why doesn’t my example work? I’ve heard you utter the same ought and is lines but your not providing any explanations for them.

#53
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,081
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tarik
Nope, not attempting to affirm anything...Just producing calculated comments and presenting them to an entertaining discussion platform. 

If lying can achieve a result, it can. We would perhaps use affirmation to give a lie credibility.

Morality is a highly variable concept anyway.....Though one could affirm and attribute a moral principle to a situation, and then subsequently ignore that moral principle.



And...Is....Is definite.....If something is, then it is.

And...Ought....Is indefinite....If we ought,  we nonetheless, might or might not.

Yet another pointless word argument....But nonetheless entertaining....Which I suppose is a point.....Words Words Words.
#54
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tarik
Because your presented argument:

P1: God tells us we ought not murder
Con: Therefore we ought not to murder

Is a non-sequitur, the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises, because there is another premise that is hidden in there, that you ignored, as I already explained this

P1: God tells us we ought not murder
P2: We ought to listen to god
Con: Therefore we ought not to murder

perhaps your confused because the word "ought" is in the first premise. Please read your own lines carefully and employ comprehension while doing so - it is describing an alleged fact of reality - that god's rules say not to murder - that is not an ought that is an is - a description of reality (allegedly). 
#55
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
Nope, not attempting to affirm anything...Just producing calculated comments and presenting them to an entertaining discussion platform. 
Well maybe you should choose yours words more carefully because you’ve just described affirming.

If lying can achieve a result, it can. We would perhaps use affirmation to give a lie credibility.
Yes, but context matters and the context of this discussion is whether or not morality is objective, if you choose to lie about that you’re at a loss attempting to defend an incorrect position, and why would you want that result?

Morality is a highly variable concept anyway.....Though one could affirm and attribute a moral principle to a situation, and then subsequently ignore that moral principle.
Yes but the narrative is that affirmations intent not whether or not the affirmer will obey. 

And...Ought....Is indefinite....If we ought, we nonetheless, might or might not.
Ought is predicated on what we might do it’s predicated on what we should do.

Yet another pointless word argument
If words are so pointless to you then you wouldn’t dedicate a great deal of your time on this forum using many of them and debating them.
#56
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Theweakeredge
Okay, so even if I accepted this is and ought premise (which I’m not sure I do but let’s give it a shot) why does one have to derive from the other for my position of objective morality to be true?
#57
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tarik
Objective morality means that the laws of morals are true indepedent of anything else, they are like the laws of gravity and the like - however - within any moral argument oughts or in this case, the goals, are subjective - because goals are intrinsinically subjective, that means that any morals or anything telling you what you ought to do cannot be objective.
#58
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
In other words, your syllogism is neither valid nor sound.
Well stated.
#59
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
Objective morality means that the laws of morals are true independent of anything else, they are like the laws of gravity and the like - however - within any moral argument oughts or in this case, the goals, are subjective - because goals are intrinsically subjective, that means that any morals or anything telling you what you ought to do cannot be objective.
Well stated.
#60
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
Any is - you cannot get an prescription of reality from a description of reality. 
Yep.