-->
@SkepticalOne
They cannot exist without a mind, and, as such, they are not objective.
Not anything you haven’t said before, so what your just going to ignore my rebuttal?
Atheism and humanism are completely contradictory
Posts
Total:
1,052
-->
@TWS1405
atheism and humanism, an implicit false equivalency fallacy
depends on your choice of definitions
-->
@Shila
Facts and evidence are verifiable independently
how do you verify something "independently" ?
-->
@Tarik
Not anything you haven’t said before
Agreed, but what I have already said is the explanation you asked for.
so what your just going to ignore my rebuttal?
Your rebuttal makes no sense. Love and desire (what god wants) would be subjective.
-->
@SkepticalOne
Your rebuttal makes no sense. Love and desire (what god wants) would be subjective.
Once you add proof into the equation that’s when something is objective so if theirs objective proof that you should have a goal (heaven) that proof overrules any subjectivity.
-->
@Tarik
Once you add proof into the equation that’s when something is objective so if theirs objective proof that you should have a goal (heaven) that proof overrules any subjectivity.
Proof of what? God? Heaven? There is no 'proof' for these things - only claims. Besides, even if you were able to provide proof of, say, God as the origin of the proposed standard of love, it is still dependent on a mind and still subjective.
-->
@SkepticalOne
it is still dependent on a mind and still subjective.
The redundancy isn’t getting us anywhere so let’s try this, are facts objective?
A fact is an internal conclusion relative to something
Therefore subject to data analysis.
Therefore everything is subjective.
Without a brain/processing unit there is nothing.
-->
@Tarik
are facts objective?
Depending on what definitiin you are use for objective and what this fact is regarding, facts can be objective.
"There is grass in my backyard" is an objective fact. My feelings and mind have no necessary role in this fact, and anyone can verify without my input.
"I can perfectly imagine my back yard" might be a fact, but it is not objective. My mind necessarily plays a role, and verification (if possible) requires interaction with me.
Functionally speaking, what is morality?
It’s a collection of emotional responses we have to ours and others actions and interactions.
We feel guilty at things we do, we feel angry at others when they do something wrong.
Those feelings differ from person to person, culture to culture, and time period to time period. Attitudes change and evolve.
In that respect, functional morality is by definition subjective.
On top of this functional morality - we have created ethical frameworks which attempt to seek to quantify our emotional responses in a way, in order to provide a logical consistent underpinning for moral decisions.
None of the work very well - considering ethical thought experiments such as the trolly problem - because we always end up being faced with conditions where an ethical answer “feels” immoral - but we can’t really explain why.
This appears to be because while our morality is somewhat guided by general principles - it is inherently subjective.
One of the critical issues with morality, however, is that good and bad are arbitrary and subjective.
We intrinsically feel that Murder is immoral; our ethical considerations suggest murder is immoral as we feel our life has value, and we should treat others as if they are like us and thus value value.
I can only tell you that we all mostly agree that our lives have value - I can’t tell you whether we’re actually correct. No one can.
God doesn’t actually fix this. I still can’t tell whether human life has value or not, all your doing is saying that it does, because an unquestionable authority says it does.
That doesn’t change or fix anything about what morality is; it just moves the problem on to a place you don’t have to think about it; and declare it cannot be questioned.
For example : if God is responsible for declaring what is moral and what isn’t - morality still isn’t objective: it’s a collection of arbitrary edicts from a diety - those edicts could potentially be anything he chooses.
Which leads back to exactly the same problem - we don’t know why human life has value, we just agree that it does. All God serves to achieve is to add one more person that agrees with your moral perspective.
Even that doesn’t really even work - since that not even all Christian’s of all age cannot agree on God thinks is moral or not; so one can add ambiguous as well as arbitrary to Gods morality.
The best way to think about objective vs subjective - is the difference between how bright the sun is, vs whether the sun is very bright.
The first you only have to agree on a standard of measurement so that you’re both talking about the same things: visible light per square cm or meter - the quantity measured can’t be disputed.
The latter relies on an arbitrary standard that can’t be agreed without taking someone word for it.
A blind person can agree on how bright the sun is - but not whether the sun is “very bright” unless they simply agree with out basis someone else’s opinion on what constitutes very bright.
-->
@Ramshutu
A blind person can agree on how bright the sun is - but not whether the sun is “very bright” unless they simply agree with out basis someone else’s opinion on what constitutes very bright.
A blind persons view of the sun will always be subjective because he cannot verify it.
Even accepting the view of someone who can see will also be subjective because he cannot verify that either.
That is no different than someone who can see but relies on a blind persons view of the sun. It too is subjective.
That is why the Bible describes Christian’s as the blind leading the blind.
Luke 6:39 He also told them this parable: “Can the blind lead the blind? Will they not both fall into a pit?
-->
@Ramshutu
The best way to think about objective vs subjective - is the difference between how bright the sun is, vs whether the sun is very bright.The first you only have to agree on a standard of measurement so that you’re both talking about the same things: visible light per square cm or meter - the quantity measured can’t be disputed.The latter relies on an arbitrary standard that can’t be agreed without taking someone word for it.A blind person can agree on how bright the sun is - but not whether the sun is “very bright” unless they simply agree with out basis someone else’s opinion on what constitutes very bright.
Good analogy.
> @RamshutuThe best way to think about objective vs subjective - is the difference between how bright the sun is, vs whether the sun is very bright.The first you only have to agree on a standard of measurement so that you’re both talking about the same things: visible light per square cm or meter - the quantity measured can’t be disputed.The latter relies on an arbitrary standard that can’t be agreed without taking someone word for it.A blind person can agree on how bright the sun is - but not whether the sun is “very bright” unless they simply agree with out basis someone else’s opinion on what constitutes very bright.Good analogy.
You left out conclusion.
“A blind persons view of the sun will always be subjective because he cannot verify it.
Even accepting the view of someone who can see will also be subjective because he cannot verify that either.
That is no different than someone who can see but relies on a blind persons view of the sun. It too is subjective.
That is why the Bible describes Christian’s as the blind leading the blind.
Luke 6:39 He also told them this parable: “Can the blind lead the blind? Will they not both fall into a pit?”
-->
@Shila
A blind persons view of the sun will always be subjective because he cannot verify it.Even accepting the view of someone who can see will also be subjective because he cannot verify that either.That is no different than someone who can see but relies on a blind persons view of the sun. It too is subjective.That is why the Bible describes Christian’s as the blind leading the blind.Luke 6:39 He also told them this parable: “Can the blind lead the blind? Will they not both fall into a pit?
Brightness would be visible photons per square meter.
A blind person can agree how bright the sun is by virtue of being able to agree on the number of photons per square meter.
Being able to see the sun is not a requirement.
Now ‘very bright’ could be an arbitrarily decided value upon or the blind person would have to take someone’s word for it that it’s ‘very bright’ based on some else’s vision tolerance.
Either way ‘very bright’ is a thing of human construction, and not something objective that can be determined and agreed independently.
-->
@SkepticalOne
might be a fact
It either is or it isn’t.
"I can perfectly imagine my back yard" might be a fact,It either is or it isn’t.
I assure you, it is not a fact (I can't perfectly imagine my back yard), but that is irrelevant to the point: Something dependent on a mind is not objective.
-->
@SkepticalOne
I assure you, it is not a fact (I can't perfectly imagine my back yard), but that is irrelevant to the point
It was your example dude not mine 😂
-->
@Tarik
It seems you are easily distracted. 😂
-->
@SkepticalOne
It seems you are easily distracted. 😂
Distracted by your example you want to call irrelevant, interesting logic 😂
-->
@Tarik
My mistake...it's not distraction you suffer from...its dishonesty. Your "objective" standard doesn't seem to be in effect friend.
-->
@SkepticalOne
->@Tarik
My mistake...it's not distraction you suffer from...its dishonesty. Your "objective" standard doesn't seem to be in effect friend.
THIS!
-->
@SkepticalOne
My mistake...it's not distraction you suffer from...its dishonesty.
For arguments sake what does that have to do with the example you used?
-->
@Ramshutu
Functionally speaking, what is morality?It’s a collection of emotional responses we have to ours and others actions and interactions.
exactly
-->
@Ramshutu
--> @ShilaA blind persons view of the sun will always be subjective because he cannot verify it.Even accepting the view of someone who can see will also be subjective because he cannot verify that either.That is no different than someone who can see but relies on a blind persons view of the sun. It too is subjective.That is why the Bible describes Christian’s as the blind leading the blind.Luke 6:39 He also told them this parable: “Can the blind lead the blind? Will they not both fall into a pit?Brightness would be visible photons per square meter.A blind person can agree how bright the sun is by virtue of being able to agree on the number of photons per square meter.Being able to see the sun is not a requirement.Now ‘very bright’ could be an arbitrarily decided value upon or the blind person would have to take someone’s word for it that it’s ‘very bright’ based on some else’s vision tolerance.Either way ‘very bright’ is a thing of human construction, and not something objective that can be determined and agreed independently.
How Cana blind person agree how bright the sun is by virtue of being able to agree on the number of photons per square meter?
Now ‘very bright’ could be an arbitrarily decided value upon or the blind person would have to take someone’s word for it that it’s ‘very bright’ based on some else’s vision tolerance.
A blind persons view of the sun will always be subjective because he cannot verify it.
Even accepting the view of someone who can see will also be subjective because he cannot verify that either.
Either way ‘very bright’ is a thing of human construction, and not something objective that can be determined and agreed independently.
So even people with sight cannot determine “what is very bright” because is not something objective that can be determined and agreed independently.
-->
@Shila
How Cana blind person agree how bright the sun is by virtue of being able to agree on the number of photons per square meter?
exactly
in order for something to be "objective"
it must be "identical to all possible observers" which obviously includes blind people, but also includes horses and dogs and cave crickets
in order for something to be "objective"
it must be "unbiased" and it is a tautological fact that all data processed by humans is SAMPLE BIASED
-->
@3RU7AL
--> @ShilaHow can a blind person agree how bright the sun is by virtue of being able to agree on the number of photons per square meter?exactlyin order for something to be "objective"it must be "identical to all possible observers" which obviously includes blind people, but also includes horses and dogs and cave cricketsin order for something to be "objective"it must be "unbiased" and it is a tautological fact that all data processed by humans is SAMPLE BIASED
It might be just as hard to get a blind person to agree with horses and dogs and cave crickets on high bright the sun is than it would be for a person with sight.
-->
@Shila
How Cana blind person agree how bright the sun is by virtue of being able to agree on the number of photons per square meter?
The same way we 'see' anything beyond any of our sensory ranges. A sighted person can't see radiation any better than a blind person, but both can detect and measure it. In the same way, a blind person can measure photons.
-->
@SkepticalOne
Do photon detection machines for blind people provide a braille print out, or voice output. Or do blind people rely upon a third party to tell them the truth.
Nonetheless, light waves within the visible range, are obviously apparent to a person with functioning receptors.
-->
@zedvictor4
Do photon detection machines for blind people provide a braille print out, or voice output. Or do blind people rely upon a third party to tell them the truth.
You're off in the weeds... suffice to say, a blind person can rely on tools like anyone else.
-->
@zedvictor4
--> @ShilaHow can a blind person agree how bright the sun is by virtue of being able to agree on the number of photons per square meter?The same way we 'see' anything beyond any of our sensory ranges. A sighted person can't see radiation any better than a blind person, but both can detect and measure it. In the same way, a blind person can measure photons.
A sighted person having seen sunlight can understand how instruments are used to measure its brightness.
A blind person having never seen sunlight will be further confused when told about the different levels of brightness and how numbers are used to represent these levels.
That’s like giving a blind man a torchlight and taught how to use the on/off switch. How does he know when to apply it?