Atheism and humanism are completely contradictory

Author: Conservallectual

Posts

Total: 1,052
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,173
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Tarik
But objective facts are right, a subjective opinion is neither right or wrong.
You have gotten hopelessly caught up in semantics.

“Right” does not always mean “factually correct”. It has other applications.

An employer terminates an employee after determining the employee’s conduct was counterproductive to the company’s goals. If the determination is accurate, they made “the right move”. There is nothing objective about this decision because the company’s goals are very much subjective.

A dancer in the middle of a choreographed performance performs “the wrong move”. It’s wrong because it is not what was planned with the group. There is nothing objective about the move itself being wrong because the group could have decided the move to be anything they wanted.

A singer sings the wrong note to a song. There is nothing objective about this statement because songs can be sung in any way the singer wants and alternate renditions have been written many times before.

There is no need for any of this to be objective for us to recognize a right or a wrong. All we need is a shared starting point so that we can arrive at the same conclusions together.

This isn’t complicated.



Q1: Is language objective or subjective?
It’s an objective way of effectively communicating yes, the mutual understanding of both parties using it is objective proof of this.
The word “way” in this sentence is used synonymously with “method”. To better understand the issue here let’s repeat this sentence by making that substitution;

“It’s an objective [method] of effectively communicating yes…”

There is no such thing as an “objective method”. A method is by definition a product of a thinking mind. Once again, objectivity requires independence from thinking minds. This is a logically incoherent concept.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Shila
Scientists are objective.

Why is it important for a scientist to be objective?


Scientists will alter hypotheses and theories when new knowledge is developed. Objectivity is important in science because scientific studies seek to get as close to the truth as possible, not just prove a hypothesis. Experiments should be designed to be objective and not to get the answers that a scientists wants

There are some 8.8 million scientists in the world. That’s a lot of qualified objective humans.
Please feel free to paraphrase opposing arguments in order to seek further clarification if needed.

(2) Proposed definition: "science"

(s.1) "Science is systematic knowledge acquired by the application of logic to observation."[2]

Please let me know if you provisionally agree to allow common google.com definitions of words contained within these definitions.[2]

(3) Proposed definition: "objective"

Objective: (o.1) (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. (AND/OR) not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.[3]

(o.1a) antonyms: biased, partial, prejudiced[3]
(o.1b) antonyms: subjective[3]

For contrast, I would like to present a common definition of "subjective":

(IFF) (sj.1) Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. (AND/OR) dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence.[8]

(sj.1a) antonyms: objective[8]

And (IFF) "subjective" is an antonym of "objective" (THEN) "objective" can not be "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. (AND/OR) dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence."[8]

(4) Key support for resolution
Let's analyze the resolution "Science is not objective."

(k.1) Science as defined in (s.1) implies that "science" is the "knowledge" (data) acquired by "observation" (ostensibly by a human or possibly by more than one human).

(k.2) I believe it is fair to say that human observation is impossible without a human mind and an individual's (definitively subjective) perception and this fact would logically place "objectivity" beyond the scope of the human mind and an individual's perception according to the definitions presented previously as (o.1) and (o.1b).

The resolution could be restated as (s.1) is not (o.1).

(k.3) Another way to say this would be perhaps, "knowledge acquired by (human) observation is not (and cannot be) independent of the human mind and/or beyond human perception".

(5) Reinforcements
As far as I can tell, Karl Popper's Philosophy of Science is generally considered authoritative. Please let me know if you dispute this and we can attempt another approach.

"According to Popper, basic statements are "statements asserting that an observable event is occurring in a certain individual region of space and time" (1959, p. 85). More specifically, basic statements must be both singular and existential (the formal requirement) and be testable by [*]intersubjective[*] observation (the material requirement)."[5]

Therefore "science" is not "objective" and does not require "objectivity". This seems to be a common misconception about the fundamental nature of "science" and by extension, just about everything else, including "law" and "ethics", some people even think they have "objective opinions".

"Science" seems to function perfectly well under Popper's model. I am unable to detect any benefit to imagining that any particular thing has some sort of (detectable?) "objective" quality or existence.

In fact, Immanuel Kant points out pretty explicitly that "objective" noumenon is fundamentally undetectable and its "existence" cannot be inferred from observable phenomena.

"Even if noumenon are unknowable, they are still needed as a limiting concept, Kant tells us. Without them, there would be only phenomena, and since potentially we have complete knowledge of our phenomena, we would in a sense know everything. In his own words: "Further, the concept of a noumenon is necessary, to prevent sensible intuition from being extended to things in themselves, and thus to limit the objective validity of sensible knowledge."[6]

"...to prevent sensible intuition from being extended..."[6]

The quote makes it sound as if Kant is trying to "put a box around the concept of objectivity" in order to keep people from making the mistake of thinking they can know it, or in-fact even speculate about it intuitively.

(6) Common counter arguments
I would like to bring your attention to the following quotes,

"We have shown that it is hard to define scientific objectivity in terms of a view from nowhere and freedom from values and from personal bias. It is a lot harder to say anything positive about the matter."[7]

"For instance, our discussion of the value-free ideal (VFI) revealed that alternatives to the VFI are as least as problematic as the VFI itself, and that the VFI may, with all its inadequacies, still be a useful heuristic for fostering scientific integrity and objectivity. Similarly, although an "unbiased" science may be impossible, there are many mechanisms scientists can adopt for protecting their reasoning against undesirable forms of bias, e.g., choosing an appropriate method of statistical inference."[7]

The above quotes are from the conclusions (section 7) of an extremely well sourced page from the Stanford.edu website that purports to be a thorough analysis of the concept of scientific objectivity.

One key problem with this essay, is that it never clearly defines the critical terms (i.e. "science" and "objectivity"), but instead merely reports various (definitively subjective) opinions about what "science" and "objectivity" might mean and how they may or may not relate to one another.

But setting that aside, in their conclusions they admit that although they can make some tentative statements about what "scientific objectivity" is not, they are at a complete loss to say exactly what it is (with any positive assertions). This reminds me of the "god in the gaps"[9] argument and would seem to be an example of the "appeal to ignorance"[10] logical fallacy.

They go on to argue that even if "objectivity" is perhaps (probably) an unattainable goal, it is still better than the (presumably shocking or frightening, yet undefined) alternative (clearly an "affirming the consequent"[11] fallacy). I would imagine that scientists, of all categories of people in the world would understand the dangers of pursuing an amorphous concept that presumably lends unquestionable authority to their conclusions.

(7) Round 1 closing statement
Feel free to expand upon and/or challenge any of the arguments described above or add your own. I look forward to having a civil conversation regarding the topic at hand.

Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Please feel free to paraphrase opposing arguments in order to seek further clarification if needed.

(2) Proposed definition: "science"

(s.1) "Science is systematic knowledge acquired by the application of logic to observation."[2]

Please let me know if you provisionally agree to allow common google.com definitions of words contained within these definitions.[2]

(3) Proposed definition: "objective"

Objective: (o.1) (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. (AND/OR) not dependent on the mind for existence; actual.[3]

(o.1a) antonyms: biased, partial, prejudiced[3]
(o.1b) antonyms: subjective[3]

For contrast, I would like to present a common definition of "subjective":

(IFF) (sj.1) Subjective: based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. (AND/OR) dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence.[8]

(sj.1a) antonyms: objective[8]

And (IFF) "subjective" is an antonym of "objective" (THEN) "objective" can not be "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. (AND/OR) dependent on the mind or on an individual's perception for its existence."[8]

(4) Key support for resolution
Let's analyze the resolution "Science is not objective."

(k.1) Science as defined in (s.1) implies that "science" is the "knowledge" (data) acquired by "observation" (ostensibly by a human or possibly by more than one human).

(k.2) I believe it is fair to say that human observation is impossible without a human mind and an individual's (definitively subjective) perception and this fact would logically place "objectivity" beyond the scope of the human mind and an individual's perception according to the definitions presented previously as (o.1) and (o.1b).

The resolution could be restated as (s.1) is not (o.1).

(k.3) Another way to say this would be perhaps, "knowledge acquired by (human) observation is not (and cannot be) independent of the human mind and/or beyond human perception".

(5) Reinforcements
As far as I can tell, Karl Popper's Philosophy of Science is generally considered authoritative. Please let me know if you dispute this and we can attempt another approach.

"According to Popper, basic statements are "statements asserting that an observable event is occurring in a certain individual region of space and time" (1959, p. 85). More specifically, basic statements must be both singular and existential (the formal requirement) and be testable by [*]intersubjective[*] observation (the material requirement)."[5]

Therefore "science" is not "objective" and does not require "objectivity". This seems to be a common misconception about the fundamental nature of "science" and by extension, just about everything else, including "law" and "ethics", some people even think they have "objective opinions".

"Science" seems to function perfectly well under Popper's model. I am unable to detect any benefit to imagining that any particular thing has some sort of (detectable?) "objective" quality or existence.

In fact, Immanuel Kant points out pretty explicitly that "objective" noumenon is fundamentally undetectable and its "existence" cannot be inferred from observable phenomena.

"Even if noumenon are unknowable, they are still needed as a limiting concept, Kant tells us. Without them, there would be only phenomena, and since potentially we have complete knowledge of our phenomena, we would in a sense know everything. In his own words: "Further, the concept of a noumenon is necessary, to prevent sensible intuition from being extended to things in themselves, and thus to limit the objective validity of sensible knowledge."[6]

"...to prevent sensible intuition from being extended..."[6]

The quote makes it sound as if Kant is trying to "put a box around the concept of objectivity" in order to keep people from making the mistake of thinking they can know it, or in-fact even speculate about it intuitively.

(6) Common counter arguments
I would like to bring your attention to the following quotes,

"We have shown that it is hard to define scientific objectivity in terms of a view from nowhere and freedom from values and from personal bias. It is a lot harder to say anything positive about the matter."[7]

"For instance, our discussion of the value-free ideal (VFI) revealed that alternatives to the VFI are as least as problematic as the VFI itself, and that the VFI may, with all its inadequacies, still be a useful heuristic for fostering scientific integrity and objectivity. Similarly, although an "unbiased" science may be impossible, there are many mechanisms scientists can adopt for protecting their reasoning against undesirable forms of bias, e.g., choosing an appropriate method of statistical inference."[7]

The above quotes are from the conclusions (section 7) of an extremely well sourced page from the Stanford.edu website that purports to be a thorough analysis of the concept of scientific objectivity.

One key problem with this essay, is that it never clearly defines the critical terms (i.e. "science" and "objectivity"), but instead merely reports various (definitively subjective) opinions about what "science" and "objectivity" might mean and how they may or may not relate to one another.

But setting that aside, in their conclusions they admit that although they can make some tentative statements about what "scientific objectivity" is not, they are at a complete loss to say exactly what it is (with any positive assertions). This reminds me of the "god in the gaps"[9] argument and would seem to be an example of the "appeal to ignorance"[10] logical fallacy.

They go on to argue that even if "objectivity" is perhaps (probably) an unattainable goal, it is still better than the (presumably shocking or frightening, yet undefined) alternative (clearly an "affirming the consequent"[11] fallacy). I would imagine that scientists, of all categories of people in the world would understand the dangers of pursuing an amorphous concept that presumably lends unquestionable authority to their conclusions.

(7) Round 1 closing statement
Feel free to expand upon and/or challenge any of the arguments described above or add your own. I look forward to having a civil conversation regarding the topic at hand.

At a minimum you should know: This is a religion forum. That we also have a philosophy forum for your type of discussion.

Distinctions between objectivity and subjectivity lie at the heart of debates and conflicts in philosophy, morality, journalism, science, and more. Very often "objective" is treated as a vital goal while "subjective" is used as a criticism. Objective judgments are good; subjective judgments are arbitrary. Objective standards are good; subjective standards are corrupt.

Reality isn't so clean and neat: there are areas where objectivity is preferable, but other areas where subjectivity is better.

Objectivity, Subjectivity, and Philosophy
In philosophy, the distinction between objective and subjective normally refers to judgments and claims which people make. Objective judgments and claims are assumed to be free from personal considerations, emotional perspectives, etc. Subjective judgments and claims, however, are assumed to be heavily (if not entirely) influenced by such personal considerations.

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Shila
the distinction between objective and subjective normally refers to judgments and claims which people make. Objective judgments and claims are assumed to be free from personal considerations, emotional perspectives, etc. Subjective judgments and claims, however, are assumed to be heavily (if not entirely) influenced by such personal considerations.
which brings us once again back to HUME'S GUILLOTINE

facts alone cannot convey meaning

facts must be colored with context

and context is by definition, subjective (sample biased)
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
--> @Shila
In Philosophy the distinction between objective and subjective normally refers to judgments and claims which people make. Objective judgments and claims are assumed to be free from personal considerations, emotional perspectives, etc. Subjective judgments and claims, however, are assumed to be heavily (if not entirely) influenced by such personal considerations.
which brings us once again back to HUME'S GUILLOTINE

facts alone cannot convey meaning
Facts are objective  when it is free from personal considerations,
facts must be colored with context
Facts coloured with context is not free from personal considerations,
and context is by definition, subjective (sample biased)
Context that is subjective is not free from personal considerations,
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
There is nothing objective about this decision because the company’s goals are very much subjective.
You’re the one that can’t see the forest from the trees, fact of the matter is the rules of the workplace are exactly that the rules of the workplace, and if one were to violate said rules then they are by definition wrong, there employee handbook which they agreed upon through signature is objective proof of this.

There is nothing objective about the move itself being wrong because the group could have decided the move to be anything they wanted.
Could’ve, would’ve, should’ve, fact of the matter is they did decide and the move wasn’t in accordance to the decision, not following protocol is objectively wrong.

There is nothing objective about this statement because songs can be sung in any way the singer wants and alternate renditions have been written many times before.
The phrase off key/pitch exists for a reason, we literally have computer systems that can detect pitch and sound because that’s an objectively real thing dude 🤦🏾‍♂️ 

All we need is a shared starting point so that we can arrive at the same conclusions together.
Making those conclusions objective under that shared starting point, enough with your examples man.

Once again, objectivity requires independence from thinking minds. This is a logically incoherent concept.
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
Right” does not always mean “factually correct”. It has other applications.

An employer terminates an employee after determining the employee’s conduct was counterproductive to the company’s goals. If the determination is accurate, they made “the right move”. There is nothing objective about this decision because the company’s goals are very much subjective.

A dancer in the middle of a choreographed performance performs “the wrong move”. It’s wrong because it is not what was planned with the group. There is nothing objective about the move itself being wrong because the group could have decided the move to be anything they wanted.

A singer sings the wrong note to a song. There is nothing objective about this statement because songs can be sung in any way the singer wants and alternate renditions have been written many times before.

There is no need for any of this to be objective for us to recognize a right or a wrong. All we need is a shared starting point so that we can arrive at the same conclusions together.
All your examples are not   free from your personal considerations. Therefore they cannot be objective.


In Philosophy the distinction between objective and subjective normally refers to judgments and claims which people make. Objective judgments and claims are assumed to be free from personal considerations, emotional perspectives, etc. Subjective judgments and claims, however, are assumed to be heavily (if not entirely) influenced by such personal considerations.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Shila
Facts are objective  when it is free from personal considerations,
please present a meaningful claim

an argument, that is important to you personally

that consists ONLY of facts
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
and if one were to violate said rules then they are by definition wrong, there employee handbook
you're assuming the "employee handbook" is a coherent document (AND) that enforcement is uniform

neither of these is a given
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
@Double_R
you're assuming the "employee handbook" is a coherent document (AND) that enforcement is uniform

neither of these is a given                                                    
Which is the proper assumption based on Double_R’s use of the term “right”, and the sole purpose of rules is to be enforced, that’s a given.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
you're assuming the "employee handbook" is a coherent document (AND) that enforcement is uniform

neither of these is a given                                                                           
Which is the proper assumption based on Double_R’s use of the term “right”, and the sole purpose of rules is to be enforced, that’s a given.
the point is

that the employer and or their proxy

SUBJECTIVELY

decides

"what is best for the company"
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
“the point is

that the employer and or their proxy

SUBJECTIVELY

decides

"what is best for the company"
No, the point is that violating agreed upon rules of the workplace is a fireable offense plain and simple, how those rules were determined remains separate to the firing itself.

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
No, the point is that violating agreed upon rules of the workplace is a fireable offense plain and simple, how those rules were determined remains separate to the firing itself.
only if "the rules" are coherent

and enforcement is uniform
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,173
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Tarik
Making those conclusions objective under that shared starting point
This is the very point I have been explaining to you for days.

From the starting point, we can objectively determine whether something is in accordance with it.

The starting point however, will always be subjective.

Now apply this to morality

Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
only if "the rules" are coherent

and enforcement is uniform
If your only play here is to go in circles that’s how you know you lost, have a nice day 3.

Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
Now apply this to morality
In regards to morality you don’t have to “share” anything the results are what they are period.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
only if "the rules" are coherent

and enforcement is uniform
If your only play here is to go in circles that’s how you know you lost, have a nice day 3.
if you can't see how "the rules" are subjective

and if you can't see how "enforcement" is also subjective

you must live in a perfect world where everyone is treated fairly

where everyone gets exactly what they "objectively" deserve
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
if you can't see how "the rules" are subjective

and if you can't see how "enforcement" is also subjective

you must live in a perfect world where everyone is treated fairly
I don’t know how you can come to that reach of a conclusion based off of one work example.

where everyone gets exactly what they "objectively" deserve
In the end sure, justice will always be served.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
I don’t know how you can come to that reach of a conclusion based off of one work example.
Judges are more lenient after taking a break, study finds

Prisoners are more likely to be granted parole early in the day or after a break such as lunch, according to researchers

Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Judges are more lenient after taking a break, study finds

Prisoners are more likely to be granted parole early in the day or after a break such as lunch, according to researchers

Interesting, still don’t know what that has to do with the price of tea in China.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
Interesting, still don’t know what that has to do with the price of tea in China.
it's just one example of how judges are not "objective" when reviewing parole requests
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
Judges are more lenient after taking a break, study finds

Prisoners are more likely to be granted parole early in the day or after a break such as lunch, according to researchers

Interesting, still don’t know what that has to do with the price of tea in China.
enforcement of "the rules" is NOT UNIFORM
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
it's just one example of how judges are not "objective" when reviewing parole requests
Okay, but I never argued that they were.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
it's just one example of how judges are not "objective" when reviewing parole requests
Okay, but I never argued that they were.
you were arguing that it is possible to enforce employee regulations "objectively"
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,173
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Tarik
Now apply this to morality
In regards to morality you don’t have to “share” anything the results are what they are period.
What are you talking about?

The word “share” was not written anywhere in my post, so why are you responding to it and why are you putting it in quotations?

And what does “the results are what they are” have to do with anything I just said?

“Apply this to morality” - the “this” being the fact that objectivity can only be determined from the starting point on, but morality requires the individual to choose the starting point making it necessarily subjective.
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
you were arguing that it is possible to enforce employee regulations "objectively"
Parole is not a regulation dude, stop reaching.
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
The word “share” was not written anywhere in my post, so why are you responding to it and why are you putting it in quotations?
Maybe not in post #404 but you most certainly said shared in post #391.

And what does “the results are what they are” have to do with anything I just said?
Because it doesn’t matter if two individuals agree on a “moral” standard, if it doesn’t align with God’s then they both will have to deal with the objective result of going to hell, making that standard meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

but morality requires the individual to choose the starting point making it necessarily subjective.
No, because there’s a fundamental objective difference between God’s choice and an opposing individuals choice and that’s the results that I alluded to in the upper paragraph.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
you were arguing that it is possible to enforce employee regulations "objectively"
Parole is not a regulation dude, stop reaching.
is it possible for a judge to "objectively" enforce the law ?
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
Because it doesn’t matter if two individuals agree on a “moral” standard, if it doesn’t align with God’s then they both will have to deal with the objective result of going to hell, making that standard meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
i will never go to imaginary hell no matter what i do

because i trust in imaginary jesus
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
is it possible for a judge to "objectively" enforce the law ?
Depends on the narrative.

i will never go to imaginary hell no matter what i do

because i trust in imaginary jesus
Do you believe morality is also imaginary? Because you can’t have morality without heaven and hell. Last note, even atheists concede to the existence of Jesus through the empirical evidence.