Antitheist AMA

That the belief system being addressed are fundamentally different, morality and evolution that is - technically, a materialist or a naturalists world view is based on fundamental truths, or scientific principles, and that is what I was referring to, these fundamental truths as opposed to the next two words, "or propositions" which refers to worldviews like morality.

Objectivity is a subjective assumption.....In my opinion.

And if we dispute the meaning of words, then anything might or might not mean anything....Take morality for example.

Last time I checked the belief system being addressed over the course of this discussion was morality I said nothing of the sort about evolution.

Well I guess we’ll never know unless we dispute, so that’s why I do it because I want answers.

Did you... ignore my point? The entire purpose was to explain the definition of principle and what I was referring to, I was using a distinction in order to strengthen the poignantcy of my line of reasoning. Was "what does evolution have to do with this" all you got? I answered your criticism of my use of principle. Next?

I’m still trying to figure out what that is.

You referred to evolution, everything was a blur from there.

Well it didn’t work.

You’ve completely lost me here so let’s backtrack, are you willing to retract this evolution point from your previous argument or at the very least rethink your premise?

No, that was an example of what one of the roots of principle could be, referring to the scientific or "fundamental" truths that it refers to as opposed to the "or propositions" You seem to be purposely obtuse here. Evolution being used as an example literally doesn't matter, you didn't even read what I was talking about, for the third time, if your take away was, "Evolution? Whaaa?" Then you need to relearn how to identify the main idea of a passage. Not to mention, you brought this entire "evolution" (and when i say brought up, I don't mean the first one to mention it, that was me, you were the first one to make it a main topic of discussion), as a red herring, or will you finally address the points I brought up? From posts #59 and #61

Fine if that’s not the main idea then I guess it’s fair if I ignore it completely (considering I can’t figure it out and you’re tired of explaining it). I’ll move on to what you said here.

Now correct me if I’m wrong but wrong about what exactly? Morality being subjective?

I was referring to myself, hence the use of the pronoun, "I", and yes. You could construe that definition in a way that would be opposite the conclusion I reached. That conclusion being, "Principles used to affirm morality are subjective".

And the opposite conclusion being principles used to affirm morality are objective?

No.... the opposite conclusion that they are not used to affirm subjective principle, there is a slight difference, as semantically-inclined as you are I thought you would appreciate it

What’s not used? Please reword the conclusion.

That principles are not used to affirm subjective morality.

Okay so what is subjective morality? Because disagree or not you know what objective morality is.

As I have already defined - subjective in this context is referring to something which depends on the mind or an individual's perspective for existence, so subjective morality is morality that is dependent on the mind or an individual's perspective for existence. Think in terms of social constructs. 

But whose to say social constructs is “moral” who’s the ultimate judge of that?

Are you asking what I use as my standard of morailty? I've already explained that, well-being, or if you like, "Something which positively benefits the mental and physical state of someone."

But whose to say what is and isn’t positive who’s the ultimate judge of that?

Mankind

But isn’t it very much possible that mankind can be wrong? I’m sure you’ll feel that way if mankind were all religious.

I would suggest that you already have a fixed opinion, on a great many things.

I don't think it's answers that you are looking for.

By the empirical results? Why are you so against mankind making its own moral creed, why are you so against principles which probably align with a lot of your own? Because so far - you've yet to strike it in any critical critereon. Don't get me wrong, this argument is by no means perfect, and there are flaws - people have criticized my take before, but they always hit much harder than you are now - attacking much more contingent points - in fact - I even pointed you to a source with nearly 30 to 40 posts of direct criticism, and though we have gone back forth for hundreds of posts I believe he attacked it on much more fronts, and much more effectively than you did. I gave you the link to my "Moral subjectivist AMA" forum, did you not look at that either? To me personally - it seems as if your objection with this morality is your bias towards god.

Well since you know me better then I know myself please pray tell what I’m looking for?

I don't know you, and I don't know if they're correct, but if I were to guess? I'd say you were looking for affirmation of your own belief by trying to discard others.

That would be correct although bias isn’t a term I would use, but why does it seem that way (even though I already confirmed your correct in your assumption)?

I am trying to figure out what "personal control" means. I suppose it means self-control, but I'm not sure.

True and hopefully that affirmation is the answer.

Um... the fact that you have, repeatedly, asserted that the only way there can be morals is with god... .and you have yet to substantiate that claim

Were you raised theist? If so, what religion and what made you change your beliefs?

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again, you wouldn’t be asking me to substantiate anything if we agreed on what morality was, I’m asking the questions I’m asking with the hopes of you seeing that morality isn’t subjective and if you can see that then what you ask of me will be answered.