Atheism and humanism are completely contradictory

Author: Conservallectual

Posts

Total: 1,052
#481
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
--> @Shila
do you routinely feel the need to EXPLAIN why you are UNCONVINCED that our lord nanabozho is a real god ?

(hint, this is a "yes" or "no" question)
You have convinced me your lord nanabozho is a real god to you.
is that a "yes" or a "no" ?
You have convinced me your lord nanabozho is a real god to you.

#482
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
i'm not "preaching atheism"

i'm a gnostic deist
Which God are you Deist about, be specific.

The burden of proof is on you!!!

Woohoo I win!
#483
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Sidewalker
-> @3RU7AL
i'm not "preaching atheism"

i'm a gnostic deist
Which God are you Deist about, be specific.

The burden of proof is on you!!!

Woohoo I win!
Why didn’t he pick Monad?

#484
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Shila
You have convinced me your lord nanabozho is a real god to you.
do you feel the need to EXPLAIN why you do NOT believe our lord nanabozho is a real god to you personally ?

(please answer with a "yes" or a "no")
#485
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Sidewalker
Which God are you Deist about, be specific.
NOUMENON
#486
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
-> @Shila
You have convinced me your lord nanabozho is a real god to you.
do you feel the need to EXPLAIN why you do NOT believe our lord nanabozho is a real god to you personally ?

(please answer with a "yes" or a "no")
Yes, You have convinced me your lord nanabozho is a real god to you.
#487
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Shila
Yes, You have convinced me your lord nanabozho is a real god to you.
do you feel the need to EXPLAIN why ?
#488
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
-> @Shila
You have convinced me your lord nanabozho is a real god to you.
do you feel the need to EXPLAIN why you do NOT believe our lord nanabozho is a real god to you personally ?

(please answer with a "yes" or a "no")
Yes, You have convinced me your lord nanabozho is a real god to you.

do you feel the need to EXPLAIN why ?
You wanted a “(please answer with a "yes" or a "no")

You got your answer.

Yes, You have convinced me your lord nanabozho is a real god to you.
#489
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Double_R
Out here in the real world,it is a nonsense statement to say that the subject matter, Atheism, "has absolutely nothing to do with  ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions".   You can redefine words all you want, your deeply held religious convictions don't change the factthat Atheism entails ontological and epistemological questions.  
You’re confusing atheism with skepticism.

Skepticism is the ground on which most atheists deal with questions of ontology and epistemology, atheism is merely the result of this exercise.
LOL, nope, I'm still not playing your puerile game here, I'm simply stating the fact that it's innane to say Atheism "has absolutely nothing to do with  ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions".   I'm not talking about your little Atheism cult with it's dogmatic beliefs, it's rituals and it's childish burden of proof game, I'm talking about real Atheism, a subject matter that raises both epistemological and ontological questions. 

I also know what skepticism is, it is not a philosophic system that only applies to Theism, that's just your kiddie game, I'm talking about real world philosophical issues.  

It just isn't that complicated if you understand the actual definition of the words, get a dictionary.



#490
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Which God are you Deist about, be specific.
NOUMENON
Yep, another one of your oh so kewl words, I happen to know what it means, so I know it is a non-sequitor, maybe you should go look it up.  
#491
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Shila
Yes, You have convinced me your lord nanabozho is a real god to you.
why do you not feel the need to explain WHY ?
#492
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Sidewalker
Atheism has absolutely nothing to do with  ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions
#493
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Sidewalker
Which God are you Deist about, be specific.
NOUMENON
Yep, another one of your oh so kewl words, I happen to know what it means, so I know it is a non-sequitor, maybe you should go look it up.  
some people call it, EIN SOF
#494
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
--> @Shila
You have convinced me your lord nanabozho is a real god to you.
do you feel the need to EXPLAIN why you do NOT believe our lord nanabozho is a real god to you personally ?

(please answer with a "yes" or a "no")

You wanted a “(please answer with a "yes" or a "no")

You got your answer.

Yes, You have convinced me your lord nanabozho is a real god to you.

why do you not feel the need to explain WHY ?
You wanted a “(please answer with a "yes" or a "no")

You got your answer.

Yes, You have convinced me your lord nanabozho is a real god to you.

#495
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
I understand your version of it, I’m pointing out that there are plenty other versions out there for one to adopt and apply to their life, which is what makes this subjective.
Well I already told you my issue with your “version”, you went on to list three examples of right subjective answers then backpedaled by agreeing there objective under a given pretense, no wonder why you’re a subjectivity advocate because you can’t keep your arguments objectively consistent.
#496
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Tarik
--> @Double_R
I understand your version of it, I’m pointing out that there are plenty other versions out there for one to adopt and apply to their life, which is what makes this subjective.
Well I already told you my issue with your “version”, you went on to list three examples of right subjective answers then backpedaled by saying there objective under mutual agreement, no wonder why you’re a subjectivity advocate because you can’t keep your arguments objectively consistent
Do you know of anyone else that does the same things as Double_R?

#497
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Shila
Yes, You have convinced me your lord nanabozho is a real god to you.
i thought you said you needed to explain the epistemological and ontological framework that informs your belief on this particular manner
#498
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL


i thought you said you needed to explain the epistemological and ontological framework that informs your belief on this particular manner

But you raised the question below.

-->
@Shila
do you routinely feel the need to EXPLAIN why you are UNCONVINCED that our lord nanabozho is a real god ?

(hint, this is a "yes" or "no" question)
You wanted a “(please answer with a "yes" or a "no")

You got your answer.

Yes, You have convinced me your lord nanabozho is a real god to you.

#499
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
The word "Atheism" has to do with what someone "believes",  "Epistemology" is the branch of philosophy that involves "knowledge" and "belief", note that both definitions involve the word "belief", so it follows that the word "Atheism" has something to do with the word "Epistemology".  
anyone can self-identify as an "atheist"
Yeah, so what

the minimum qualification is simply

to be unconvinced of the reality of any specific gods
OK, and that has something to do with epistemology.

being unconvinced does not REQUIRE any understanding of epistemology
Apparently being a gnostic deist does not require any understanding of epistemology either.

epistemology is more specifically about HOW you know what you know

with emphasis on the LIMITS of what a human can know
Yeah, I know about epistemology.

Play your kiddie games with somebody else, you are never going to convince me that atheism is this special subject matter that is invisable to all philosophical systems of thought, that's just your dogmatic religious belief, it might be in your burden of proof game rule book, but it's not got anything to do with the real world of philosophy.
#500
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Shila
You got your answer.

Yes, You have convinced me your lord nanabozho is a real god to you.
the question is about whether or not you feel the need to explain why you are unconvinced

your opinion about whether or not i am personally convinced

is not part of the question
#501
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Sidewalker
the minimum qualification is simply

to be unconvinced of the reality of any specific gods
OK, and that has something to do with epistemology.
being unconvinced does not demand any epistemological explanation

in the same exact way, you do not feel compelled to explain why you don't happen to believe in grondrakmorph the immortal
#502
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Atheism has absolutely nothing to do with  ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions
Oooh, good one.

Maybe if you keep repeating it, eventually it won't be so stupid.
#503
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
the minimum qualification is simply

to be unconvinced of the reality of any specific gods
OK, and that has something to do with epistemology.
being unconvinced does not demand any epistemological explanation
Being Gnostic Deist does not demand any philosophical comprehension.

in the same exact way, you do not feel compelled to explain why you don't happen to believe in grondrakmorph the immortal
In the same exact way, I do not feel compelled to explain why you don't comprehend basic philosophy.
#504
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Sidewalker
Being Gnostic Deist does not demand any philosophical comprehension.
do you have a specific question ?
#505
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Sidewalker
in the same exact way, you do not feel compelled to explain why you don't happen to believe in grondrakmorph the immortal
In the same exact way, I do not feel compelled to explain why you don't comprehend basic philosophy.
explaining your own beliefs

is one thing

explaining someone else's beliefs

is something else entirely
#506
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Sidewalker
do you consider yourself an atheist ?
#507
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
do you consider yourself an atheist ?
No.

Do you consider yourself rational?
#508
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Sidewalker
LOL, nope, I'm still not playing your puerile game here, I'm simply stating the fact that it's innane to say Atheism "has absolutely nothing to do with  ONTOLOGICAL and or EPISTEMOLOGICAL questions".
So in other words; you are making a claim, on a debate site, and then when that claim is directly challenged with a counter argument your response is to dismiss it as a game and restate your original assertion “as fact”.

Why are you here then?

I'm not talking about your little Atheism cult with it's dogmatic beliefs, it's rituals and it's childish burden of proof game
I understand that it must be frustrating to hold a position which you cannot justify. If I held into such a position I’m pretty sure I would hate talking about the burden of proof as well. But it is a real thing that matters in the real world.

What’s ironic is that you claim to be seeking a better understanding of epistemological and ontological questions and yet you avoid one of the most basic concepts within it as if you owed it child support.

I also know what skepticism is, it is not a philosophic system that only applies to Theism, that's just your kiddie game, I'm talking about real world philosophical issues. 
I never suggested it only applied to theism. You made that up completely out of thin air, and in doing so demonstrate a remarkable level of close mindedness and confirmation bias.

Again, if you’re not interested in understanding the view points of those who disagree with you then why are you here?

And as far as “real world philosophical issues” goes, skepticism is again, one of the most basic ones. You are not actually seeking the conversation you claim to be seeking.

#509
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
Again, if you’re not interested in understanding the view points of those who disagree with you then why are you here?
You disagreed with the view points of two members and lost both debates. So we know why you are here.

#510
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Tarik
Well I already told you my issue with your “version”, you went on to list three examples of right subjective answers then backpedaled by agreeing there objective under a given pretense, no wonder why you’re a subjectivity advocate because you can’t keep your arguments objectively consistent.
The “given pretense” you are describing is called logic.

Logic begins with a given set of premises. From there, in a deductive argument, the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises.

If A, then B
A
Therefore…

The conclusion to this is not up for debate any more than 2+2=4 is up for debate. In that sense, B is necessarily the conclusion. In other words, it is objectively the conclusion.

But it is only the conclusion if premise one is accepted.

Morality is that which aligns to God.
X aligns to God.
Therefore X is…

Moral or immoral?

The conclusion from these premises is again, not debatable. Changing the word “God” in the above to “well being” does not change the logic of the equation. In other words, it’s objectivity remains in impacted by whatever you plug in at the start.

The fact that the conclusion can be reached objectively however, has nothing to do with whether the statement itself is necessarily true.

When I talk about objectivity being necessarily subjective, I’m talking about from the standpoint of the premises. Where it is objective is from the standpoint of the conclusion from the premises.

This is really basic stuff, so it’s baffling that after all these days/weeks, you still don’t understand it to the point where you have convinced yourself that I’m arguing against myself.

Let’s try this one more time. Slowly.

The standard for morality will always be chosen subjectively, therefore any claim that X is moral/immoral will always ultimately be subjective.

Once a standard is assumed at the outset, X will always be objectively moral/immoral within the framework set by the standard chosen.

Every argument I’ve made in this thread has followed these basic concepts. The only thing inconsistent is your understanding of the conversation you are engaged in.