Atheism and humanism are completely contradictory

Author: Conservallectual

Posts

Total: 1,052
#91
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,168
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Tarik
Except what I find pointless is a part of your argument that I’m questioning (that you still haven’t answered, wonder why 🤔) so yes that makes it very relevant.
Let's recap. You claimed morality only makes sense if it's objective. I then asked you for an objective standard to which you replied "love". I then asserted "well being" as the standard for morality and challenged you to objectively resolve this difference. You have been tap dancing ever since.

So let's just cut to the chase; there is no such thing as objective morality. You can have a moral system that objectively follows from the core standard, but the standard itself will always be chosen by the individual, making it necessarily subjective.

If you claim God as your moral standard, I can easily reject God as the standard and as I already have, assert something else. At that point we have two different moral systems. There is no objective resolution to this, not even a god because if one does exist and weighed in on which is correct, the answer would then be *subject to* his will.
#92
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
how do you propose we measure love, you know, scientifically
Not sure you can.
i agree, and this is why love is not considered "objective"
#93
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
You can have a moral system that objectively follows from the core standard, but the standard itself will always be chosen by the individual, making it necessarily subjective.
HUME'S GUILLOTINE
#94
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
are you suggesting that love is some sort of object, you know, like a rock ?

How love objectifies parts of a person we are attracted to in expressions like:
I love your  hair, I love your body, I love your booty, I love your rocks etc. etc.

#95
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Tarik
They are if theirs an objective presence supporting them.
*There's*

Of the two definitions provided, love and desire qualify as objective exactly zero times. You're 0 for 2, my friend. 
#96
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Tarik
--> @3RU7AL
how do you propose we measure love, you know, scientifically
Not sure you can.
If you love sex.

You can measure your love by the size of your erection.

#97
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
*subject to*
Double_R how many times do we have to go in this circle, this isn’t the 1st time you’ve made this argument that I already refuted.

#98
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
i agree, and this is why love is not considered "objective"
Science isn’t the only objective standard.
#99
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@SkepticalOne
Of the two definitions provided, love and desire qualify as objective exactly zero times. You're 0 for 2, my friend. 

Well I disagree, you see how easy that was 😉
#100
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
i agree, and this is why love is not considered "objective"
Science isn’t the only objective standard.
which definition of "objective" are you using ?
#101
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Tarik
Well I disagree, you see how easy that was 😉
Okay. You're disagreeing with the definition you provided. 😉
#102
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-> @Tarik
Well I disagree, you see how easy that was 😉
SkepticalOne: Okay. You're disagreeing with the definition you provided. 😉
How is that Okay?
#103
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,168
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Tarik
Double_R how many times do we have to go in this circle, this isn’t the 1st time you’ve made this argument that I already refuted.
You never refuted anything. That discussion was over the definition of subjective. We're talking about whether morality is objective, a point you cannot make and so you deflect as you have been doing this whole thread.

As absurd as it is to assert that X being *subject to* what one says about it does not make X subjective, that last line was not the point of the post. Address the post.
#104
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,168
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Shila
Objectivity is not independent of mind. It is independent of personal feelings or beliefs and based only on facts and evidence.
Yes, and personal feelings or beliefs come from... Minds.

The assessment of what is objective necessarily requires a mind, that is something different.
#105
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
--> @Shila
Objectivity is not independent of mind. It is independent of personal feelings or beliefs and based only on facts and evidence.
Yes, and personal feelings or beliefs come from... Minds.

The assessment of what is objective necessarily requires a mind, that is something different.
That is how the mind is able to separate facts from feelings. Facts and evidence are verifiable independently but feelings are personal and the mind recognizes that.
#106
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Shila
Facts and evidence are verifiable independently
but not independently of a mind

and also not without bias
#107
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL

--> @Shila
Facts and evidence are verifiable independently
but not independently of a mind

and also not without bias
Just like the mind is capable of separating facts from fiction. The mind has to distinguish facts from feelings.
Facts and evidence are verifiable independently but feelings are not. So the mind can label it as subjective and not objective.
#108
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
which definition of "objective" are you using ?
#109
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@SkepticalOne
Okay. You're disagreeing with the definition you provided. 😉
No, I just expanded on it for clarity 😉 
#110
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
That discussion was over the definition of subjective.
Which we clearly disagree on, making your 

*subject to*
emphasis meaningless.
#111
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
Atheism and humanism are completely contradictory.

A simple  yes or no should suffice.
#112
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Avery
Also, humanism is ridiculous. Groups of humans differ genetically to such a degree that treating them all the same is to treat them all poorly. Basic human rights are fine, but universalized doctrine for freedom of speech, immigration, cognitive ability etc. -, especially when you take into account cultural (e.g. religion), is going to make no one happy.
THIS! (I agree 100%)

#113
Public-Choice
Public-Choice's avatar
Debates: 19
Posts: 1,065
3
4
8
Public-Choice's avatar
Public-Choice
3
4
8
Tbh, OP's point are why I never understood moral atheists.

Why is humanism true? Why is it even worth pursuing when the whole world is full of people who will screw you over for an extra $0.50/hr.?

Without belief in any sort of religious system, what is the point of humanism? What does it actually give the atheist?

Ironically, the fact many atheists gravitate toward humanism (a system that tries to place intrinsic value onto other people and tells people to treat others the way they would want to be treated) shows how, even people who are as anti-God as possible still have an inbred idea of morality and right and wrong, and they are restless to figure out how to live right, even when there is no reason to.

This proves anecdotally what the Bible says in Romans 1:21:
For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their reasonings and their senseless hearts were darkened. [1]

And in futility they are now living the way Romans 2 describes them:
For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; for it is not the hearers of the Law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the Law who will be justified. For when Gentiles who do not have the Law instinctively perform the requirements of the Law, these, though not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience testifying and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of mankind through Christ Jesus.
Imagine that. People who don't believe there's a god begin becoming living, breathing evidence of the truth of a religious text.

SOURCES:
#114
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Conservallectual
atheism and humanism, an implicit false equivalency fallacy 
#115
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Shila
SkepticalOne: Okay. You're disagreeing with the definition you provided. 😉
How is that Okay?
It's not, but my interlocutor has established he is comfortable with a self-refuting position. No further debate is necessary.
#116
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Tarik
Okay. You're disagreeing with the definition you provided. 😉
No, I just expanded on it for clarity
Incoherent =/= clarity.
#117
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@SkepticalOne
Incoherent =/= clarity.
Are you going to explain yourself or not? Because you can’t expect me to agree with you by simply just calling my argument incoherent, so what are you trying to accomplish here?
#118
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Tarik
-> @SkepticalOne
Incoherent =/= clarity.
Are you going to explain yourself or not? Because you can’t expect me to agree with you by simply just calling my argument incoherent, so what are you trying to accomplish here?
Calling your argument incoherent is not the same as being Skeptical. It is more a comprehension issue.

#119
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Shila
Calling your argument incoherent is not the same as being Skeptical. It is more a comprehension issue.
When did I conflate the two?
#120
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Tarik
Okay. You're disagreeing with the definition you provided. 😉
No, I just expanded on it for clarity
Incoherent =/= clarity
Are you going to explain yourself or not?

Sure! The definition you provided for objective does match the standards you're advocating, my friend. Eg. Love and desire are necessarily subjective. They cannot exist without a mind, and, as such, they are not objective.