Atheism and humanism are completely contradictory

Author: Conservallectual

Posts

Total: 1,052
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Shila
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?
You're inability to grasp how a blind person functions in the world is not a valid indictment of the analogy. 
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@SkepticalOne
A totally blind person functions without light receptors and therefore makes no internal assessments relative to light.

For sure, totally blind people use other functioning sensory receptors to compensate for their loss of sight.

Nonetheless it is not possible to actually detect light with via ones ears, nose or skin.
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@zedvictor4
Nonetheless it is not possible to actually detect light with via ones ears, nose or skin
Unless you're attempting to argue a blind person can't use tools (utilizing their other senses) to detect photons, I don't see the relevance to @Ramshutu's analogy. You're stating the obvious.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@SkepticalOne
For sure.

In short.....The Sun radiates energy, which enters the Earth's atmosphere and is converted to light and heat.

Brightness is relative to the observer and not to the Sun.

Brightness would depend upon atmospheric and environmental conditions.

A blind person might assess the varying effect of the sun by registering heat.

But put a blind person in the Antarctic on a clear day and they would not register the level of brightness.
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
--> @Shila
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?
SkepticalOne: You're inability to grasp how a blind person functions in the world is not a valid indictment of the analogy. 
I don’t think a blind  person can even participate in these discussions.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Tarik
That discussion was over the definition of subjective.
Which we clearly disagree on, making your 

*subject to*
emphasis meaningless.
This is what running out of arguments and realizing you cannot support your own position looks like.
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
--> @Tarik
That discussion was over the definition of subjective.
Which we clearly disagree on, making your 

*subject to*
emphasis meaningless.
This is what running out of arguments and realizing you cannot support your own position looks like.
Tarik is not the same after he turned atheist. He has reduced himself to a minority view.

Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
This is what running out of arguments and realizing you cannot support your own position looks like.
Have any support for that assertion?
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Tarik

Have any support for that assertion?


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?

Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Tarik
Have any support for that assertion?
It's common sense. If you had a response you would have offered it instead of pretending I didn't say everything I did so you could bring back a year old debate in order to not have to address what I said.
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
-->
@Tarik
Have any support for that assertion?

It's common sense. If you had a response you would have offered it instead of pretending I didn't say everything I did so you could bring back a year old debate in order to not have to address what I said.

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?


Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Shila
If you had a response you would have offered it instead of pretending I didn't say everything I did so you could bring back a year old debate in order to not have to address what I said.
Seriously? Don’t act like there’s no common denominator between what you recently said and the “year old debate” that I brought back up, that referral was exactly that a reference/me simply addressing what you clearly have been ignoring. Now, I didn’t like bringing it back up anymore than you did reading it again but you only have yourself to blame by using circular reasoning. If you hate this trip down memory lane so much you can simply nip this in the bud by omitting the *subject to* argument from your diatribe but clearly you find it essential otherwise you wouldn’t have said it, so this notion that I don’t address what you say is just utterly false in fact I notice it even more so to refer to the original place this circular argument even started.

Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Do blind people dream ?
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Imagine The stats for.
Blind people whom are religious compared to whom are not religious.  
A guess.
52% / 48%
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Can't jesus cure blindness? 

Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
A certain brightness causes blindness. 
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Theisim and vantriloquisim are totally indiffrent 
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Do blind people dream ?
yes
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Nonetheless it is not possible to actually detect light with via ones ears, nose or skin.
you can detect the heat of an infrared lamp (and the sun) with your hand
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Tarik
:33PM
--> @Shila
If you had a response you would have offered it instead of pretending I didn't say everything I did so you could bring back a year old debate in order to not have to address what I said.
Seriously? Don’t act like there’s no common denominator between what you recently said and the “year old debate” that I brought back up, that referral was exactly that a reference/me simply addressing what you clearly have been ignoring. Now, I didn’t like bringing it back up anymore than you did reading it again but you only have yourself to blame by using circular reasoning. If you hate this trip down memory lane so much you can simply nip this in the bud by omitting the *subject to* argument from your diatribe but clearly you find it essential otherwise you wouldn’t have said it, so this notion that I don’t address what you say is just utterly false in fact I notice it even more so to refer to the original place this circular argument even started.
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?

Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Tarik
Seriously? Don’t act like there’s no common denominator between what you recently said and the “year old debate” that I brought back up, that referral was exactly that a reference/me simply addressing what you clearly have been ignoring.
There is some crossover, that doesn't mean they are the same points and it certainly doesn't mean you refuted anything meaningful. Let's start by reposting my argument that you ignored a few pages ago:

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.
First thing to notice here is that the part you zeroed in on so you could drop the rest if it was the very last line. Now if you actually read the post you would notice that the point was made in the first two paragraphs. The last paragraph was not necessary at all, it was just thrown in for emphasis and could have been done without the last sentence.

But that's the part you want to talk about.

And what do you want to discuss regarding this last sentence? A year old debate where you challenged my statement that "subject to" is "literally how you define subjective".

Well, of you look up subjective in the dictionary does it use the words "subject to"? No, so I guess you win on that one. That's not how the word is *literally* defined, so, congratulations on the "gotcha"?

For those of us who care about actual ideas however, the point of what I'm saying still stands. The *literal* definition of subjective is;

"based mainly on opinions or feelings rather than on facts"

In other words, it's based on what the individual says instead of what's actual. Which is another of saying, *subject to* a person's say so.

This is pretty basic English.

So now would you like to address what I've said and substantiate the idea that live is an objective standard for morality, or do you have any other year olds debates you would like to rehash?
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Exactly.


Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
--> @Tarik
Seriously? Don’t act like there’s no common denominator between what you recently said and the “year old debate” that I brought back up, that referral was exactly that a reference/me simply addressing what you clearly have been ignoring.
There is some crossover, that doesn't mean they are the same points and it certainly doesn't mean you refuted anything meaningful. Let's start by reposting my argument that you ignored a few pages ago:

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.
First thing to notice here is that the part you zeroed in on so you could drop the rest if it was the very last line. Now if you actually read the post you would notice that the point was made in the first two paragraphs. The last paragraph was not necessary at all, it was just thrown in for emphasis and could have been done without the last sentence.

But that's the part you want to talk about.

And what do you want to discuss regarding this last sentence? A year old debate where you challenged my statement that "subject to" is "literally how you define subjective".

Well, of you look up subjective in the dictionary does it use the words "subject to"? No, so I guess you win on that one. That's not how the word is *literally* defined, so, congratulations on the "gotcha"?

For those of us who care about actual ideas however, the point of what I'm saying still stands. The *literal* definition of subjective is;

"based mainly on opinions or feelings rather than on facts"

In other words, it's based on what the individual says instead of what's actual. Which is another of saying, *subject to* a person's say so.

This is pretty basic English.

So now would you like to address what I've said and substantiate the idea that live is an objective standard for morality, or do you have any other year olds debates you would like to rehash?
You don’t seem to be getting anywhere despite having a definition for “Subjective”.

Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
There is some crossover, that doesn't mean they are the same points and it certainly doesn't mean you refuted anything meaningful.
The only “point” that crosses over is your argument regarding subjectivity and if it isn’t meaningful then you wouldn’t have made it not once but TWICE.

Now if you actually read the post you would notice that the point was made in the first two paragraphs.
The fact that I keep quoting you and responding PROVES that I’m indeed reading your posts. If you don’t like me bringing up old stuff then why do you insist on recapping? That 1st paragraph was countered with a question of my own that YOU been “tap dancing” to answer and that’s 

why would you be concerned about your well being if you didn’t love yourself first?
As for the second paragraph my response would’ve been something responsive to what was said in the third paragraph hence why I skipped over it so if any paragraph could go it’s your second not your third.

Well, of you look up subjective in the dictionary does it use the words "subject to"? No, so I guess you win on that one. That's not how the word is *literally* defined, so, congratulations on the "gotcha"?
You said it yourself that you used “subject to” as emphasis to your point but clearly I reject your attempt at emphasizing because if you “READ WHAT I SAID” in the the “year old debate” I cited you would notice I took your example and used it against you showing no signs of subjectivity whatsoever, yet you want to accuse me of not reading you which is the biggest hypocrisy you uttered.

"based mainly on opinions or feelings rather than on facts"
Exactly so to tie this back to our discussion a fact is something that can be proven, so for arguments sake if love is what gets you into heaven then that’s the proof in the pudding.

Which is another of saying, *subject to* a person's say so.
Clearly you didn’t read or comprehend my example in our previous argument because if you did you wouldn’t have uttered this nonsense.

Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Tarik
Exactly so to tie this back to our discussion a fact is something that can be proven, so for arguments sake if love is what gets you into heaven then that’s the proof in the pudding.
If love gets you into heaven why is the proof in the pudding? Shouldn’t heaven be the proof?

Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,481
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Shila
Shouldn’t heaven be the proof?
Indeed, hence why I included heaven as a part of my diatribe.
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Tarik
The fact that I keep quoting you and responding PROVES that I’m indeed reading your posts. If you don’t like me bringing up old stuff then why do you insist on recapping?
I recap because you seem to like inventing your own conversations rather than replying to the one you’re actually engaged in. Like here, where you accuse me of not liking that you bring back up old arguments. I have no issue with you bringing back up old arguments when they’re (A) relevant, and (B) not used as a means of disregarding the conversation we’re engaged in. I explained this when I responded, you ignored all of that.

I took your example and used it against you showing no signs of subjectivity whatsoever
Ah, the weather example. Let’s look at that again…

I was subjected to this weather. That sentence has nothing to do with dependent on the mind for existence
Again, the *literal* definition of subjective is:

“based mainly on opinions or feelings rather than on facts”

So when you say subject to the weather, there are no opinions involved. The weather is what it is regardless of what anyone thinks about it. But when you say something is subject to an individuals say so then that necessarily, means it is dependent on that person’s opinion.

Your example doesn’t prove your point, it demonstrates the opposite.

Exactly so to tie this back to our discussion a fact is something that can be proven, so for arguments sake if love is what gets you into heaven then that’s the proof in the pudding.
Prove that there is such thing as heaven.

And once you’ve done that, explain how getting into heaven is an objective basis for morality.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
I recap because you seem to like inventing your own conversations rather than replying to the one you’re actually engaged in.
exactly

it seems nearly impossible for some people to imagine there are TWO VALID points of view when it comes to describing a conversation

one of those is clearly more "important" to one party

and the other is clearly more "important" to the other party

you don't have to ADOPT my perspective, but you do need to at least acknowledge that it exists and is valid
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
So when you say subject to the weather, there are no opinions involved. The weather is what it is regardless of what anyone thinks about it. But when you say something is subject to an individuals say so then that necessarily, means it is dependent on that person’s opinion.
some people love it when it rains

some people hate it when it rains

some people think 50 degrees fahrenheit  is cold

some people think 50 degrees fahrenheit  is warm

"the weather" isn't the point

HOW PEOPLE FEEL ABOUT IT

IS THE ONLY THING THAT IS MEANINGFUL