-->
@Shila
Moses did!!
by what logic did moses support the claim "god told me" ?
Atheism and humanism are completely contradictory
Posts
Total:
1,052
-->
@3RU7AL
-> @ShilaMoses did!!by what logic did moses support the claim "god told me" ?
Moses simply repeated what God told him.
Exodus 33:11 The LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend. Then Moses would return to the camp, but his young aide Joshua son of Nun did not leave the tent.
I'm late, but
Atheism: there is no god, therefore there is no afterlife, therefore nothing you do or think matters at all. There is no moral standpoint, only what you like matters.
This is not the correct definition of atheism. Everything goes wrong after the second comma, maybe even the first. It's even self-contradictory: the third and fourth sentences are nihilistic, and the fifth is hedonistic, and I don't think hedonism is compatible with nihilism.
And it's really incorrect to conflate all ethics that don't centrally focus God. I'd agree, for example, that utilitarianism doesn't have a great explanation for why humans matter more than animals, but Kant probably does.
-->
@Double_R
@Shila
If the topic has nothing to do with appeal to emotions
That’s Double_R’s argument, not mine.
-->
@Tarik
Double_R: Nothing about that topic has anything to do with appeal to emotion fallacies.Tarik reply: Subjectivity is influenced by that.
You were asked the question by Shila.
If the topic has nothing to do with appeal to emotions, how is subjectivity influenced by that?
That’s Double_R’s argument, not mine.
That was your response to Double_R: Subjectivity is influenced by that.
-->
@Username
I'd agree, for example, that utilitarianism doesn't have a great explanation for why humans matter more than animals, but Kant probably does.
Many utilitarians don't think that humans matter more, such as Peter Singer.
-->
@Double_R
@Shila
That was your response to Double_R: Subjectivity is influenced by that.
But your question wasn’t in reference to my response it was in reference to Double_R’s, hence why you quoted him.
-->
@Tarik
@Shila
Nothing about that topic has anything to do with appeal to emotion fallacies.Subjectivity is influenced by that.
No, it's not. These two things are not even the same category.
"Ice cream is delicious" is subjective. There is nothing about this statement that has anything to do with the appeal to emotion fallacy.
An appeal to emotion fallacy is when you attempt to use someone's emotions to convince them of the truth of an objective statement. For example "if we don't have free will then we're just a collection of atoms doing what they're programmed". The idea that we're just following our programming is grim, so this argument seeks to convince someone as to what the truth of our nature is (an objective truth) based on what they would like it to be ("I don't want to be pre programmed, so I'll believe our nature is whatever means we're not programmed").
Objectivity/Subjectivity is about the type of claim being made. Logical fallacies are about errors in the process of assessing the claim. These two do not overlap.
So why don’t you get back to the original conversation which is about what objectivity and subjectivity are, which we had to get into because of the original conversation that morality does not make sense unless it is objective.
I will as soon as the person I am responding to decides to have it.
-->
@Username
And it's really incorrect to conflate all ethics that don't centrally focus God.
And it's really incorrect to conflate all ethics that do centrally focus God.
-->
@Double_R
"Ice cream is delicious"
Due to one’s EMOTIONAL APPEAL of ice cream.
-->
@Double_R
-->@Shila@TarikNothing about that topic has anything to do with appeal to emotion fallacies.Subjectivity is influenced by that.No, it's not. These two things are not even the same category."Ice cream is delicious" is subjective. There is nothing about this statement that has anything to do with the appeal to emotion fallacy.An appeal to emotion fallacy is when you attempt to use someone's emotions to convince them of the truth of an objective statement. For example "if we don't have free will then we're just a collection of atoms doing what they're programmed". The idea that we're just following our programming is grim, so this argument seeks to convince someone as to what the truth of our nature is (an objective truth) based on what they would like it to be ("I don't want to be pre programmed, so I'll believe our nature is whatever means we're not programmed").
What if the truth is “Ice cream is delicious".
Objectivity/Subjectivity is about the type of claim being made. Logical fallacies are about errors in the process of assessing the claim. These two do not overlap.
Logical fallacy is accessing the claim “Ice cream is delicious" without tasting it.
So why don’t you get back to the original conversation which is about what objectivity and subjectivity are, which we had to get into because of the original conversation that morality does not make sense unless it is objective.I will as soon as the person I am responding to decides to have it.
What if he refuses to have it and the ice cream melts. It wont be delicious anymore and the truth “Ice cream is delicious" will no longer be valid.
-->
@Shila
What if the truth is “Ice cream is delicious".
only about 79% of humans enjoy eating ice cream
-->
@Tarik
"Ice cream is delicious"Due to one’s EMOTIONAL APPEAL of ice cream.
That’s not what an appeal to emotion is. I would explain it, but I just did. You are either not being serious or not capable of understanding complex and nuanced topics.
-->
@3RU7AL
--> @ShilaWhat if the truth is “Ice cream is delicious".only about 79% of humans enjoy eating ice cream
Over 80% of the world believe in a God. That matches well with 79% of humans enjoy eating ice cream.
So God and ice cream are objectively equally appreciated.
-->
@Shila
"objective" does not mean "majority opinion"
-->
@3RU7AL
--> @Shila"objective" does not mean "majority opinion"
Over 80% of the world believe in a God. That matches well with 79% of humans enjoy eating ice cream.
So God and ice cream are objectively equally appreciated
That is not a majority opinion. That is a statistical fact that 80% of the world love both God and ice cream.
-->
@Shila
That is a statistical fact that 80% of the world love both God and ice cream.
1. Without correlative data, this is almost definitely false. While ~80% of the world population (extrapolated from a smaller scale survey/study) report enjoying ice cream, and ~80% report belief in a God, they are not the same 80%. There could theoretically be as low as only 60% of people both believing in God and enjoying ice cream. If we assume zero correlation, then the number would be approximately (0.8x0.8) = 64% of the population
2. Before you were arguing that the statement "ice cream is delicious" is an objective fact, now you are arguing that the statement "80% of humans enjoy eating ice cream" is an objective fact. Given that the latter statement is true, the former is definitionally disproven, as 20% of the population doesn't enjoy it, ergo not objectively and universally found to be delicious.
-->
@Double_R
I would explain it, but I just did.
(In reference to the ice cream example) No, you didn’t.
--> @ShilaThat is a statistical fact that 80% of the world love both God and ice cream.1. Without correlative data, this is almost definitely false. While ~80% of the world population (extrapolated from a smaller scale survey/study) report enjoying ice cream, and ~80% report belief in a God, they are not the same 80%. There could theoretically be as low as only 60% of people both believing in God and enjoying ice cream. If we assume zero correlation, then the number would be approximately (0.8x0.8) = 64% of the population.
According to sociologists Ariela Keysar and Juhem Navarro-Rivera's review of numerous global studies on atheism, there are 450 to 500 million positive atheists and agnostics worldwide (7% of the world's population).
So the percentage of people who love God and Ice Cream is higher than 60%. They are close to 73%.
2. Before you were arguing that the statement "ice cream is delicious" is an objective fact, now you are arguing that the statement "80% of humans enjoy eating ice cream" is an objective fact. Given that the latter statement is true, the former is definitionally disproven, as 20% of the population doesn't enjoy it, ergo not objectively and universally found to be delicious.
According to sociologists Ariela Keysar and Juhem Navarro-Rivera's review of numerous global studies on atheism, there are 450 to 500 million positive atheists and agnostics worldwide (7% of the world's population).
How many people in the world do not like ice cream?
This survey reveals that 7% of respondents don't eat ice cream.
Even here the number of people who like ice cream is around 93%. That’s leaves the 7% who don’t like ice creams equal to the 7% atheists in the world. So even if we exclude both groups and add their numbers we still have 86% of the world population who love God and ice cream.
-->
@Shila
Those are completely different percentages than you were using before, and you have cited no new source for 93% on ice cream. Furthermore, you didn't contest either the point on objectivity, or the lack of correlation, you just changed your numbers. Your new 86% minimum overlap number is the same as my 60%, just based on different (uncited) base percentages.
--> @ShilaThose are completely different percentages than you were using before, and you have cited no new source for 93% on ice cream. Furthermore, you didn't contest either the point on objectivity, or the lack of correlation, you just changed your numbers. Your new 86% minimum overlap number is the same as my 60%, just based on different (uncited) base percentages.
The numbers changed because:
How many people in the world do not like ice cream?
This survey reveals that 7% of respondents don't eat ice cream.
That means 93% like ice cream.
Number of atheists should be 7%
According to sociologists Ariela Keysar and Juhem Navarro-Rivera's review of numerous global studies on atheism, there are 450 to 500 million positive atheists and agnostics worldwide (7% of the world's population).
So even if we exclude both groups and add their numbers to 14% combined , we still have 86% of the world population who love God and ice cream.
-->
@Shila
You cite a survey by Ariela Keysar and Juhem Navarro-Rivera about atheism, but nothing for the 93% on ice cream. Honestly I'm starting to think you're a bot again.
-->@ShilaYou cite a survey by Ariela Keysar and Juhem Navarro-Rivera about atheism, but nothing for the 93% on ice cream. Honestly I'm starting to think you're a bot again.
What percent of the world doesn't like ice cream?
The Rise of a Cleaner Alternative
"As our survey shows, only one percent of the population doesn't like ice cream – but of those who enjoy it, only 45 percent eat it regularly without concern," said Amit Pandhi.
How many people in the world do not like ice cream?
This survey reveals that 7% of respondents don't eat ice cream.
That means 93% like ice cream.
-->
@Shila
Your quote "As our survey shows, only one percent of the population doesn't like ice
cream – but of those who enjoy it, only 45 percent eat it regularly
without concern," said Amit Pandhi." isn't even from your link? And directly contradicts the 7% you and the link are saying.
--> @ShilaYour quote "As our survey shows, only one percent of the population doesn't like ice cream – but of those who enjoy it, only 45 percent eat it regularly without concern," said Amit Pandhi." isn't even from your link? And directly contradicts the 7% you and the link are saying.
People love god but they don’t go to church every day just like people love ice cream but they don’t eat it everyday. Call it Human nature.
-->
@Tarik
I’m not talking about drawing a valid conclusion under the pretense of a given statement, I’m simply talking about disputing the truth value of a claim.
But that is how you dispute it. Every truth claim is based on an argument, that argument is necessarily made up of two parts; premises and logic. That's it's anatomy so it doesn't matter whether you want to deal with it, it's still what makes it up.
So if you want to dispute a truth claim there are only two ways to do this; either challenge the premises the claim is based on or challenge the logic of the argument.
Challenging the premises is perfectly fine in any normal circumstance, but at some point infinite regress kicks in. Which is to say that at some point, there either will not be an answer or we will get down to our foundational premises like "I exist" or "the reality I experience is real". These premises cannot be substantiated, they are presumed. So on some level... Everything we believe to be true about the reality we experience is presumed. There is no solution to this, so to hang your hat on the idea that an argument built on premises that could be untrue makes the argument worthless is self defeating since that can be applied to anything.
So when you dismiss a concept because it only relies on internal logic and not necessarily true premises you are engaging is a massive self contradiction because every single thing you believe to be true is ultimately based on internal logic being applied to premises that may not be true.
“I did not say anything close to "logical arguments are fallacious".Yeah you did it’s when you said “qualify as logic in order to be considered a logical fallacy.”
You cannot assess whether the logic of a claim is valid if there is no logic. That's like judging the quality of the pizza inside an empty box.
But aren’t you doing something similar in regards to nihilism? The idea that life has no meaning or purpose is grim so you convince yourself that “well-being” is the way to go over nihilism because that’s what you would like.
Who is talking about nihilism?
I focus on well being because that is what I care about. I don't care about it out of some need to fulfill some void left by something else. Caring about well being is purely emotional and use how most of us are wired. It's foundational, so no explanation is required.
I'm sorry that your religion teaches you to feel like your existence is worthless without a god, not everyone feels that way.
-->
@Double_R
It's foundational
Objective facts are foundational.
-->
@Tarik
--> @Double_RIt's foundationalObjective facts are foundational.
Then the case for the Historical Jesus must be objective and foundational.
Please post comment.
-->
@Tarik
Objective facts are foundational.
No, they're not. We're talking now about epistemology, which literally translates into "the study of knowledge". An objective fact in this context has to be accepted as such, which requires a mental process to get to that point. That process is what epistemology is, that's what we're discussing.
In other words, foundational premises are the very ground we stand on before we can accept anything as an objective fact. So no, objective facts are not foundational.