-->
@Tarik
I called it an example not the only example.
Please share your other sources.
The great atheist deception
Posts
Total:
204
-->
@3RU7AL
I never claimed to have infinite knowledge on this subject, I just know the basics, the Ten Commandments for example.
-->
@Tarik
No... you seem to not understand how this works - you cannot derive an ought from an is, period, oughts are always subjective. Next, no, you simply cannot have objective morality. Subjective morality does not equate to nihilism, but I already explained that, so I won't do it again, you not understanding how basic logic works is why you can't convince anybody on this. From false dichtomies you dont adress, to not knowing what an appeal to emotion is.... or do you still think the word well-being makes subjective morality "an appeal to emotion"
-->
@Theweakeredge
(IFF) BOOK = GOOD (AND) HEAVEN = GOOD (AND) BOOK = HEAVEN (AND) HEAVEN = HAPPINESS (AND) HEROIN = HAPPINESS (THEREFORE) HEAVEN = HEROIN
Your scathing critique is requested.
-->
@3RU7AL
If is spelt with one f not two.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Definition of iff
: if and only if two figures are congruent iff one can be placed over the other so that they coincide—used in logic and mathematics [**]
-->
@3RU7AL
I see no reason to use it over just "if", eh, also I just think it looks stupid, my opinion though - although more importantly here, it would make the previous syllogism a non-sequitur (if it wasn't already one, then more of one)
P2. The passing on of the creature's DNA does not necessarily entail truth.
I ran this through Google Translate in an effort to discern what it actually means and it crashed the Google servers and brought the site down for several seconds until the backups came online.
-->
@Theweakeredge
No... you seem to not understand how this works - you cannot derive an ought from an is, period, oughts are always subjective.
I told you already, even if I accepted this premise you’ve yet to prove goals are moral.
Subjective morality does not equate to nihilism, but I already explained that, so I won't do it again, you not understanding how basic logic works is why you can't convince anybody on this.
You have this tendency of putting words in my mouth that I never said, unless you have a quote of me saying or implying such a thing then that argument is null and void.
From false dichtomies you dont adress
I’ve addressed your false dichotomy argument already too but I’ll reiterate because I’m a nice guy, unless you can prove goals are moral then it’s not logical to be convinced of that argument making nihilism the only valid option left (assuming theism isn’t true). The only way you’re false dichotomy argument holds any merit is if you can substantiate what your “syllogism” is contingent on and that’s goals being moral, which you’ve failed to do, so come correct next time otherwise have a nice day ✌🏾.
-->
@3RU7AL
That logic is flawed because it conflates general things with specific things and that difference is important for example all apples are fruits but not all fruits are apples, you catching my drift?
-->
@Tarik
And your argument is the same old, ongoing, non-evidential, "default" position that never achieves a factual result.
You attempt to prove something...But you cannot.
I do not attempt to prove anything....Because I do not need to.
I just continue to question your acquired but unsubstantiated data.
Same old, same old.
-->
@zedvictor4
I do not attempt to prove anything....Because I do not need to.
Or because you cannot, you cannot prove morality is subjective, you couldn’t then and you can’t now, same old same old.
-->
@Tarik
Goals are not "moral" - you seem to not understand my arguments. Morals or morality all have goals inherently - because moral statements are "oughts" not "is". Every moral command uses a goal, which is subjective, therefore morality cannot be objective. Very simple. Furthermore your dichotomy was: God or Nihilism, in otherwords, objective or subjective morality. Its called looking for subtext. Don't play games with me.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Morals or morality all have goals inherently - because moral statements are "oughts" not "is".
Not all oughts are goals.
Every moral command uses a goal
... A bunch of assertions with no proof, you’ve yet to prove the command is moral.
Furthermore your dichotomy was: God or Nihilism, in otherwords, objective or subjective morality.
Now your just contradicting yourself here, one minute your saying “Subjective morality does not equate to nihilism” the next your equating it to nihilism by saying “in otherwords” do you not know what in other words means? It means equating, don’t play games with me.
-->
@Tarik
Moral "command" this is how systems work inherently - please come up with a moral command which does not have a goal - a goal is what the moral wants to achieve, the end result
Its the "why" of a moral, this is not a claim, but an intrinsic nature of how morality works.
-->
@Tarik
I was highlighting your false dichotomy. Either answer a question and objection straight or this will end. You have one more chance buddy. This time there won't be a unban. You've used so many different red herrings and fallacies that I don't think you want to change your mind, you want to be right and will not stop until I agree with you. If you used something more than fallacies perhaps people would.
-->
@Tarik
A study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that by getting 70,000 participants in 42 countries to respond to sacrificial moral dilemmas — the largest study of this kind to date — an international team of psychologists was able to show how culture influences moral decision-making. The study has important implications for how we understand our moral decisions. They don’t arise out of some universal, ahistorical, hermetically sealed realm of pure reason; rather, they’re shaped by cultural norms. Hence, morals are subjective.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Its the "why" of a moral, this is not a claim, but an intrinsic nature of how morality works.
You not being able to support your assertions doesn’t make them any less of a claim, there is no intrinsic nature of subjective morality because subjective morality doesn’t exist.
I was highlighting your false dichotomy.
No you weren’t, I didn’t contradict myself in that regard, you did.
Either answer a question and objection straight or this will end. You have one more chance buddy. This time there won't be a unban. You've used so many different red herrings and fallacies that I don't think you want to change your mind, you want to be right and will not stop until I agree with you. If you used something more than fallacies perhaps people would.
You of all people shouldn’t be telling anyone to do anything “straight” snowflake. IDGAF who or what you ban but don’t get it twisted, if you think that even for a second that I’m just gonna stand by and stay silent while you spread your ignorance across this site then no sir not on my watch. I’m convinced you don’t know what a red herring or a fallacy is because I’ve done nothing of the sort, and don’t accuse me of things I know you’re guilty of because do you want to change your mind? I don’t think so, do you want to be “right”? I think you do (although we have different views on that word). As for the last sentence right back at ya ✌🏾.
-->
@FLRW
You still have to prove those cultural norms are “moral”.
-->
@Tarik
And you cannot prove the opposite......Which is my ongoing point.
Every bit of data that you and I output is internally contrived from acquired and stored data.....Our own version of things, irrespective of content.
Though I would suggest, that attempting to prove objective morality is really a secondary issue, as far as you are concerned....And that was what my previous inference was aimed at.
-->
@zedvictor4
And that was what my previous inference was aimed at.
So why are you aiming at a target that’s not there? If I attempted to prove objective morality is one thing but I’ve stressed repeatedly the circumstances of me being wrong and you still have no answer for that.
-->
@Tarik
You've lost me there.
What do you think that I was aiming at?
And what do you think you were wrong about?
And what don't I have an answer for?
-->
@Soluminsanis
P1. If atheism is true, our sensory perception and cognitive faculties were not designed to fulfill a specific telos, namely, the acquisition of truth and discerning of reality as it actually is, but rather, evolved through processes which aimed solely at the passing on of the creature's DNA.
Truth is a descriptive state of perception, (truth being a fact based conclusion) which humans as a social species has benefited from.
Claiming something is true without evidence is not saying much apart from projecting subjective/intersubjective opinion.
P2. The passing on of the creature's DNA does not necessarily entail truth.
As a descriptive concept humans have benefited from it. But not just in and of itself. It’s meaningless without a basis of facts if a claim is great enough.
P3. Therefore the atheist's sensory perceptions and cognitive faculties do not necessarily yield truth.
Truth does not just represent “reality”, it represents fact.
P4. Therefore if atheism is true, there is no justification for believing anything to be true.
As atheism is a lack of belief in god(s), you think God is reality/cosmos? If that’s how broad you have you to define God, you aren’t making a good argument.
P5. We intuit some things are in fact true, and do so with proper justification.
Like what? We aren’t born with the concept of God.
P6. Therefore atheism is false.
Not even close.
-->
@zedvictor4
What do you think that I was aiming at?
Me attempting to prove objective morality, if that weren’t the case it makes no sense to bring up that I can’t prove it.
And what do you think you were wrong about?
I don’t think I’m wrong I was just highlighting what it would mean if I was wrong and that’s nihilism.
And what don't I have an answer for?
Nihilism, I’m sure you don’t consider yourself a nihilist so under the assumption that there is no objective morality what makes your position most reasonable?
@Tarik
I have literally linked a definition of both, you keep running around in circles "Subjective morality doesn't exist.." but they do... I use subjective morality, therefore it exists, even if objective morality did exist that would not mean that subjective morality doesn't exist. On the other hand, morality is intrinsically subjective, which you haven't brought up a valid objection to.... I literally explained why goals are inherent to morals, and are therefore subjective. I don't know who you think you're fooling, but a red herring is whenever you bring up a nonrelevant point to try to distract the point... which you've done... several times. Perhaps unintentionally, but there nonetheless. Furthermore I can block you whenever I wish, you don't really have power over whether I do or not.
IF you don't understand something which multiple people have spelt out for you and you have run in circles trying to justify your objection, THEN I see no need to continue talking to you.
Especially your tendency to copy specific phrases to attempt to mock me. So. Answer my actual point, or I'll block you again. That simple.
Ohh I see, how interesting, you've blocked me this time. Well, that saves me time.
-->
@Theweakeredge
I use subjective morality, therefore it exists
You might THINK you’re using subjective morality but unless you can prove that no you’re not.
even if objective morality did exist that would not mean that subjective morality doesn't exist.
...Once again another assertion you can’t support 🥱.
On the other hand, morality is intrinsically subjective, which you haven't brought up a valid objection to.... I literally explained why goals are inherent to morals, and are therefore subjective.
Simply denying that ridiculous claim is enough of a valid objection considering you haven’t provided anything demonstrating that your right and no you haven’t explained anything, all you did was make a bunch of assertions.
which you've done... several times. Perhaps unintentionally, but there nonetheless.
Got any proof of this assertion man?
Furthermore I can block you whenever I wish, you don't really have power over whether I do or not.
I never said I did, I said IDGAF whether you do or you don’t it’s simple kid too bad you have a tough time comprehending that.
IF you don't understand something which multiple people have spelt out for you and you have run in circles trying to justify your objection, THEN I see no need to continue talking to you.
No you just feel the need to @ me after I already BLOCKED you first.
Especially your tendency to copy specific phrases to attempt to mock me. So. Answer my actual point, or I'll block you again. That simple.
No that’s to expose your contradicting ignorance and if you think contradicting ignorance is a point that requires an answer then go ahead snowflake block away.
Ohh I see, how interesting, you've blocked me this time. Well, that saves me time.
Another double whammy of yours, you knew you were blocked before you posted yet you still put your time and energy into posting anyway, so spare me the “saves me time” BS. Lastly, I’m almost certain that as much as you stress blocking me you’re gonna respond to this you’re pathetic ✌🏾.
@Tarik
I'll keep this simple - as you going off-topic is abound - you cannot derive an is from an ought, nor an ought from an is. This is due to morality having implicit goals, they are subtexts, but always present. If something can be good, that means something is preferable, IF you ought to be good, THEN the goal is to be good. That is my proof of the assertion, it is intrinsically the case. Please answer this directly, instead of dancing around it.
See, when I blocked you I didn't say anything else, but your apparent need to have the last laugh is apparent here.
-->
@Theweakeredge
This is due to morality having implicit goals
This is another assertion, what if you have no goals? Are you implying that’s immoral?
If something can be good, that means something is preferable, IF you ought to be good, THEN the goal is to be good.
I’m not sure preferences are in regards to morality especially since we can’t help some of our preferences (I discuss some of this in my forum maybe you should check it out) are you willing to argue that someone is immoral because they prefer vanilla over chocolate or vice versa? Because they can’t help that preference even if they tried and there’s no words that can be said that can convince them otherwise outside of that preference.
@Tarik
No see that isn't preferable - IF something can be good, and we ought to do good, THEN the goal is to be good
That is not preferable - that is how moral systems work - if you remove the goal then there is way to distinguish whether you ought to good or bad, which is the entire point of morality. I don't think you quite understand what morality is.
No see that isn't preferable - IF something can be good, and we ought to do good, THEN the goal is to be good
In regards to the example I just used yes, for some people chocolate is preferable over vanilla and vice versa but your not going to associate morality with that preference are you? Also the flaw I detect in your “syllogism” is it lacks clarity. You can’t have an IF with the subject in question without any explanation because when you say “good” it means something completely different from when I say it and I guess if the IF doesn’t work then nothing else that follows does.
if you remove the goal then there is way to distinguish whether you ought to good or bad, which is the entire point of morality.
I don’t know if this was a typo or not but did you mean to say there is no way to distinguish? Because if you are then I would argue there’s nothing to distinguish because “good” or “bad” doesn’t exist and neither does “morality”. As for that last line your right I don’t understand what subjective morality is that’s why I believe it’s objective.