Atheism and humanism are completely contradictory

Author: Conservallectual

Posts

Total: 1,052
#931
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
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.
Epistemology is not a process to determine what is subjective or objective. It is a study of what we know or don’t know.

Objective facts are built on  facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, ...and therefore foundational.
#932
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
An objective fact in this context 
An objective fact is the same IN ANY CONTEXT, I don’t know why you insist on making simple concepts like this so complicated.
#933
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Shila
Epistemology is not a process to determine what is subjective or objective. It is a study of what we know or don’t know.

Objective facts are built on  facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, ...and therefore foundational.
Can you please explain what it is that you've said here which I didn't just say and/or don't understand?
#934
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Tarik
An objective fact is the same IN ANY CONTEXT, I don’t know why you insist on making simple concepts like this so complicated.
The discussion shifted towards logical fallacies, validity, and determining truth. Do you not understand how that conversation is entirely sperate from the conversation about facts themselves?
#935
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
Do you not understand how that conversation is entirely sperate from the conversation about facts themselves?
No, we’re not comparing the totality of two separate conversations, we’re comparing the content of a specific words meaning in separate conversations, do you understand that difference?
#936
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Tarik
I didn't say we were comparing the totality of two speperate conversations, and no, nothing we've talked about could be described as "comparing the content of a specific words meaning in separate conversations".

You are lost. Please re read our conversation and try again.
#937
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
An objective fact is the same IN ANY CONTEXT
tell me what your god wants me to do
#938
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
I didn't say we were comparing the totality of two speperate conversations
Then what was the point of asking me

Do you not understand how that conversation is entirely sperate from the conversation about facts themselves?

nothing we've talked about could be described as "comparing the content of a specific words meaning in separate conversations
I beg to differ, because that’s exactly how I would describe MY QUOTE

An objective fact is the same IN ANY CONTEXT, I don’t know why you insist on making simple concepts like this so complicated.
So no need to reread something that I recently already said.

Lastly this back and forth is filibustering from the original narrative, you can easily nip this in the bud right now by giving me an example of an objective fact having a different meaning in different contexts, considering that’s what you implied in post #930.

#939
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
tell me what your god wants me to do
3 how many times are you going to say the same thing?
#940
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
tell me what your god wants me to do
3 how many times are you going to say the same thing?
maybe until i get an OBJECTIVE answer 
#941
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Tarik
you can easily nip this in the bud right now by giving me an example of an objective fact having a different meaning in different contexts, considering that’s what you implied in post #930.
Different contexts is not synonymous with different meaning. The context refers to what the conversation is actually about. In this case we weren't talking about what objective facts are, we were talking about how one goes about determining whether something is an objective fact.

The term "objective fact" means the same thing either way, but the focus of the conversation is entirely different. One focuses on the facts themselves, the other focuses on the mental processes of our brains. Completely different topics.

#942
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
I can't believe this one is still going!
#943
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
-->
@Public-Choice
Not sure how it got to objectivism when it started out about humanism though.
#944
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@K_Michael
Not sure how it got to objectivism when it started out about humanism though.
Well humanism and objectivism have a long rivalry. Think Ayn Rand and Foucault. They disagree on almost everything, so when you have both in the room the conversation will switch back and forth even when the other isn't considered.

Much like how it you had a Qanon and Antifa person in the same room. They will both open their mouths and debate each other endlessly.
#945
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
-->
@Public-Choice
If I recall, Ayn Rand objectivism is very different from what's being argued here (i.e., is morality/reality objective?) Didn't Ayn Rand have the idea that one should value your own happiness and achievement over anything else?
#946
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
-->
@K_Michael
Oh I haven't really been paying attention to the forum post all that much.
#947
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
Different contexts is not synonymous with different meaning.
Which is what I said in post #932 (in reference to the subject matter).

#948
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@K_Michael
Didn't Ayn Rand have the idea that one should value your own happiness and achievement over anything else?
What’s objective about being selfish (if you agree that is)?
#949
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
-->
@Tarik
What’s objective about being selfish (if you agree that is)?
I have no idea why Ayn Rand decided to call her philosophy objectivism, if she did coin the name.
#950
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@K_Michael
Not sure how it got to objectivism when it started out about humanism though.
humanists claim to "care about humans" which naturally leads the course of the discussion to ETHICS
#951
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
An objective fact is the same IN ANY CONTEXT, I don’t know why you insist on making simple concepts like this so complicated.
do you have a few examples of "facts" that you personally consider "objective" ?
#952
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
do you have a few examples of "facts" that you personally consider "objective" ?
Why are you asking me this?

#953
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
do you have a few examples of "facts" that you personally consider "objective" ?
Why are you asking me this?
because you continue to insist that there is some "objective fact" that is not "context sensitive" (identical to all possible observers)
#954
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
do you have a few examples of "facts" that you personally consider "objective" ?
Water freezes at ~273 Kelvin at 1 atmospheres.
An oxygen atom has 8 protons.
There are more people in China right now (2 November 2022) than in France.
Neon gas emits visible light primarily at 585 and 640 nm
I am (as of writing this) not wearing shoes.

#955
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@K_Michael
do you have a few examples of "facts" that you personally consider "objective" ?
Water freezes at ~273 Kelvin at 1 atmospheres.
An oxygen atom has 8 protons.
There are more people in China right now (2 November 2022) than in France.
Neon gas emits visible light primarily at 585 and 640 nm
I am (as of writing this) not wearing shoes.
these are good examples of what we commonly refer to as "facts"

however, there are a few problems with calling them "objective" (identical to all possible observers)

sea water may not "freeze" at ~273 Kelvin at 1 atmospheres, and (ALSO) without proper equipment, this "fact" is not verifiable, and (ALSO) historically, let's say 2000 years ago, this "fact" is not verifiable, and therefore does not qualify as "identical to all possible observers", and (ALSO) this "fact" is incomprehensible to say, a fly or a donkey

an oxygen atom has 8 protons, this requires specialized equipment and is therefore not verifiable to all humans and clearly not "identical to all possible observers"

i am personally unable to verify the "number of people in China" and although there are precious few people here who would dispute this particular "fact", there are people on earth who have never even heard of "China" or "France" and therefore this "fact" does not qualify as "identical to all possible observers"

and as far as you personally "wearing shoes" or not, that is absolutely unverifiable by anyone not in your immediate vicinity, and therefore does not qualify as "identical to all possible observers"

It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits.
#956
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Your definition of objective is wrong. A fact does not require you to be cognizant of it to be true. Oxygen didn't start having 8 protons when we developed the equipment to determine that. "ignorance exists in the map, not in the territory. If I am ignorant about a phenomenon, that is a fact about my own state of mind, not a fact about the phenomenon itself." My examples above are objectively true because they are true independent of any observers.

Objective: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought

this "fact" is incomprehensible to say, a fly or a donkey
Whether a fact is comprehensible to a fly is a fact about the fly's state of mind, not about the fact. The fly's knowledge doesn't affect how many protons oxygen has.
#957
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
because you continue to insist that there is some "objective fact" that is not "context sensitive" (identical to all possible observers)
And what are you insisting? That everybody’s the same?
#958
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,076
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@K_Michael
Can we ever be objective?

Those are your examples and therefore only relative to your database, irrespective of any other data acquisition and storage processes/systems.

Such is personal subjectivity and output.

Even a seemingly instantaneous repetition of data from a narrative source, is still subject to internal processing. That is to say, your own personal reinterpretation of data. Therefore subjective.

One might argue that if the stand-alone narrative data is verifiable, it is therefore objective. Nonetheless you cannot actually internally possess or lay claim to that objective data. You must always process it.
#959
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Even a seemingly instantaneous repetition of data from a narrative source, is still subject to
sample bias
#960
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
because you continue to insist that there is some "objective fact" that is not "context sensitive" (identical to all possible observers)
And what are you insisting? That everybody’s the same?
i'm simply pointing out that there are precious few if any "facts" that are impervious to context