-->
@Theweakeredge
Well I've heard that, but is it really true? Or is it just a cliche? Has any study been done that shows that?
Antitheist AMA
Posts
Total:
351
-->
@Theweakeredge
I didn’t ask about a syllogism, I said a definition. But it’s okay if you can’t support it I don’t expect you to, have a nice day.
-->
@Tarik
You asked about a definition and you were wrong... the syllogism was my argument for that, as I already explained, you are miscontruing my reasoning, hence why I corrected you
-->
@Theweakeredge
The syllogism doesn’t work if the definitions you provided is false and since you failed to support it that’s telling.
-->
@janesix
Also:
"Zero-order correlations and descriptive statistics can be found in Table 1. In line with our expectations, power over others and personal control were positively correlated. Power over others was significantly positively correlated with aggressiveness, whereas personal control was negatively and nonsignificantly correlated with aggressiveness. Gender was significantly related only to personal control, with men scoring higher than women.Power over others and personal control as predictors of verbal aggressionWe then used structural equation modeling to examine whether power over others and personal control predicted verbal aggression in opposite directions. The measurement model for the predictors included power over others and gender as manifest variables and personal control as a latent variable with three indices. The measurement model for the outcome included aggression as a latent variable with five indices. As illustrated in Figure 1,3 whereas power over others predicted verbal aggression significantly and positively, b = 0.21 [0.14, 0.29], p < .001, personal control predicted it significantly and negatively, b = −0.17 [–0.26, –0.08], p < .001. The effect of gender was not significant, b = 0.15 [–0.08, 0.37], p = .20.We also examined whether the increase in strength of the effects of power over others and personal control were significant after we accounted for their overlap. To this end, we tested for suppression effects, in which the inclusion of both predictors in the same model increases their predictive validity (e.g., MacKinnon et al., 2000). In both models, gender was included as a covariate. We found a significant suppressing effect of personal control, unstandardized estimate = −0.08 [–0.13, –0.04], indicating that the effect of power over others strengthened when personal control was included in the model, and a significant suppressing effect of power over others, unstandardized estimate = 0.11 [0.07, 0.17], indicating that the effect of personal control strengthened when power over others was included in the model."
-->
@Tarik
Except... the definitions I provided were dictionary definitions supported by Oxford English Dictionary, which is why I used them. Well-being isn't even a definition I use in the syyllogism "Definitions were wrong" you have no idea what your talking about on a rhetoric level, hence you miscontrueing things and making all sorts of fallacies, you have no idea what your talking about on a deductive level, hence all of your misattributations of fallacies, as well as not understanding that you are making them, and you have no idea what your talking about on an actual content level, as you are clearly biased, anytime you hear, "Subjective" you immediately assume it to be emotional despite having been corrected multiple times.
-->
@Tarik
I also, I spent tens and tens of post supporting my position, literally anytime I pushed you to demonstrate anything, or provide a proper rebuttal, you immediately run away or try to hand wave it away, quite interesting how thats your number one tactic
-->
@Theweakeredge
What assertion did I make that I didn’t prove?
-->
@Tarik
The entire thing about my positions being false, not understanding what affirmed meaned after I explained it to you 6 or 7 times, your own argument for morality only being existent if there was a god, and more, but those are just the highlights... Also, you gonna respond to that other post? At all? Or are you going to ignore it, because that's become par for course with you.
-->
@Theweakeredge
I intend on responding to everything I just choose to focus on one at a time, if you rather me focus on a different argument just say the word but I’ll address that last one, if your going to claim that morality exists without God then the BOP is on you because if you knew how logic works you can’t prove a negative.
-->
@Tarik
Except... that's not whats happening here- you were the first to argue that morality was dependent on god, you are connecting a causal change there - that is a positive assertion, I was the one saying, "No, there is no causal change there, you haven't demonstrated any causal chain." You do not understand BoP if that was your take away
-->
@Theweakeredge
My claim wouldn’t matter to you if we agreed on what morality is and the only reason we don’t is because you make claims about getting your definitions from Oxford English Dictionary without actually proving it.
-->
@Tarik
What? I linked all the definitions in that syllogism!
-->
@Theweakeredge
My apologies I’ll accept those definitions, but I previously disputed P2 and you’ve yet to respond to it.
-->
@Tarik
What? So your changing the goal post: You didn't have any proof those were from anywhere! to I don't like those definitions because there are other ones
Except in reference to the definition of objective, subjective definition I used was the most topical one, or the one which fit the metaphorical resolution. If you were attempting to describe whether someone, say, saved a puppy out of reasoning or emotion then the one that you used would be proper, but I never even talked about emotion, because it literally has nothing to do with it. Not to mention - most dictionary sites reference OED as the definitive source for terms.... that's why the definitions are there. You are attempting to say, "That definition because there are other definitions that don't fit that of the same word!" Then I suppose because to and too are used to describe movement and as an adjective, two doesn't describe a number?
-->
@Theweakeredge
I edited my previous post please respond to that one.
-->
@Tarik
Yet to respond! I spent like 40 posts explaining why you were about affirm, that is literally 80% of our last conversation
-->
@Theweakeredge
I was referring to
“Coming from the guy that can’t prove all principles used to affirm morality are from the mind when in fact all principles are from logic that’s why when having a moral dispute logic prevails.”
-->
@Tarik
My point was that principles are definitionally all from the mind
-->
@Theweakeredge
But that’s another assertion worth proving, just because the mind is mentioned in regards to subjectivity doesn’t mean it applies to morality as well.
-->
@Tarik
That was the entire point of the syllogism, and it does deductively connect them. Because principles are definitionally from the mind, and morality is made up of principles - therefore morality is from the mind, as morality is a scale of princples and using them to judge whether an act or intent aligns with those principles or not
-->
@Theweakeredge
Did you also give a definition of principles? Because as far as I can tell that’s just an assertion.
-->
@Tarik
Ah I'll admit I mispoke there, my syllogism proper, refers that, "All principles used to affirm morality are from the mind" So that refers to princples in a context not talking about scientific principles, but of things asserted to be true because of a mind, for example: Justice - if this was a principle used in a moral system, you are talking about a construct, justice doesn't exist unless their is some sort of agents to want it, and it only exists because of constructs, that's more what I was referring to their, its a specific sort of principle, the ones used to affirm morality, that I'm talking about, and I use this definition:
Now, it could be asserted that, based on a definition of principle: "A fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning." that I'm wrong, but the "fundamental truth" part could be in reference to, say, evolution as much as it could be to morality, hence why i specified, used to affirm morality, because that would be talking about the "or proposition"... unless you were to prove that your principle used to affirm morality was the first type of principle, then you'd be right, unless of course that principle doesn't link up to morality without an arbitary link.
Then it would be subjective.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Okay but you’re still putting the BOP on me, I thought you were the one that was supposed to prove morality is subjective.
-->
@Tarik
Yes, if that was the specific claim you would be correct, but you made a separate assertion that you needed god for their to be morality, that was an assertion that you have the burden to provide evidence for.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Like I said before evidence for my assertion wouldn’t be necessary if we agreed on what morality was, and I’d like to think disproving your idea of it would validate my assertion.
-->
@Tarik
You have yet to disprove the Oxford defined definition of Morality, and no, even if I was completely off center, and just wrong, how would that deductive, inductively, or abductively lead to the conclusion, "There is no morality without god." Please explain that, and while your at it, please demonstrate your assertion that, "There is no morality without god"
I understand your confusion, but that doesn't lead to objections that are reasonable.
-->
@Theweakeredge
You have yet to disprove the Oxford defined definition of Morality
I dispute Oxfords definition, I do however dispute the conclusion you came to based off its definition.
how would that deductive, inductively, or abductively lead to the conclusion, "There is no morality without god." Please explain that
Well if your wrong about it being subjective then by default it’s objective because that’s the only option left in regards to morality’s existence and I think I remember you saying something along the lines of others believing objective morality not requiring God but you’re not among them so no need to explain further.
-->
@Tarik
Again, let's assume that my specific argument for the subjective nature of morality was incorrect, that would not lead you to conclude in all instances: "Morality isn't subjective" You would still have to provide evidence for that assertion, just as I would have to provide evidence for the assertion, "Morality isn't objective" even if I were to defeat your singular argument. Furthermore, you are also assuming that the only route that would lead to objective morality is god, you have not substantiated that claim, do that. Instead of trying to rely on pedantics to strengthen your arguments, use some sort of reasoning. As for "I disagree with your conclusion" So far you have had only differences in the definitions of things, and I have explained, and you eventually accepted, my interpretation of definitions for them, as they are the most topical for the syllogism presented. If you have further critique go ahead, but if you are to continously claim 'i disagree' and have any wish of convincing me to agree, then provide something of an objection.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Okay I’m getting there but in order to do so can you clarify what you meant by
evolution as much as it could be to morality
I don’t see the correlation between fundamental truth and evolution in this context.