Atheism and humanism are completely contradictory

Author: Conservallectual

Posts

Total: 1,052
#61
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Avery
You didn't counter. You argued that subjective morality doesn't exist because it can contradict (which of course it can -- it's subjective).
Saying “it’s subjective” isn’t any more of a counter argument it’s just redundancy. When two diametrically opposed forces come together they cancel each other out, the cancelling out is equivalent to nonexistence. That’s how logic works.

intersubjectivity
Inter subjectivity is irrelevant to the narrative being currently discussed, you conceded as much when you say

won't be 100% consistent

#62
Avery
Avery's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 323
1
2
5
Avery's avatar
Avery
1
2
5
-->
@Tarik
I'm arguing objective morality doesn't exist. You're arguing that objective morality is better than subjective morality. We're not on the same page.
#63
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Avery
I'm arguing objective morality doesn't exist. You're arguing that objective morality is better than subjective morality. We're not on the same page.
Stating the obvious doesn’t help anything. I’m not saying anything is “better” I’m saying theirs reasonable doubt regarding “subjective morality” and not once have you argued against it in fact you’ve agreed to the self-refuting illogical nature of it, and no that’s not consistent with subjectivity in the slightest.
#64
Avery
Avery's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 323
1
2
5
Avery's avatar
Avery
1
2
5
-->
@Tarik
"and not once have you argued against it in fact you’ve agreed to the self-refuting illogical nature of it"
This sentence captures your confusion. Subjective morality is not a monolith. We can't point to subjective morality and say 'there it is. That's the subjective morality'. It varies between people based on their genetics, environments and conversations. It is amorphous. You are expecting subjective morality to behave like objective morality -- that's your problem.

In any case, find me any 'objective morality' and I'll poke holes in it to show that it's not objective. Go for it.

#65
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,333
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Tarik
And what is your objective moral standard?
Love
I reject your moral standard and assert 'well being' as the standard of morality.

How do we objectively resolve this?
#66
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,743
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
-> @Tarik
And what is your objective moral standard?
Love
I reject your moral standard and assert 'well being' as the standard of morality.

How do we objectively resolve this?
Between love and well being we need to identify the object under consideration. Is it a person, a feeling or doctrine?

#67
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Avery
It is amorphous.
Which is one of the many reasons why it doesn’t exist, do you know what it means when something cancels out? It means it’s nonexistent, just like subjective morality which you conceded

Yeah I agree that it's a problem
#68
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
I reject your moral standard and assert 'well being' as the standard of morality.
That’s not really a rejection as far as I’m concerned because “well being” falls along the lines of love, I mean why would you be concerned about your well being if you didn’t love yourself first?
#69
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,333
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Tarik
Love is an emotion. Well being is an assessment of the state of one's existence. These are not the same thing.

So again, how do we objectively resolve this?
#70
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,333
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Shila
Between love and well being we need to identify the object under consideration. Is it a person, a feeling or doctrine?
If morality is objective then it's not about our considerations.
#71
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,743
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
--> @Shila
Between love and well being we need to identify the object under consideration. Is it a person, a feeling or doctrine?
If morality is objective then it's not about our considerations.
But to be objective we have to define the object under consideration.

#72
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Tarik
And what is your objective moral standard?
Love
How is love an objective standard? 
#73
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,743
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-> @Tarik
And what is your objective moral standard?
Love
SkepticalOne: How is love an objective standard? 
Love objectifies the parts of a person that we are attracted to.

#74
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
Love is an emotion. Well being is an assessment of the state of one's existence. These are not the same thing.
I didn’t say they’re the same thing, I’m saying that assessing the state of your existence is pointless if you don’t love yourself.

#75
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@SkepticalOne
How is love an objective standard? 
Because the God I believe in wants us to love.
#76
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Shila
Love objectifies the parts of a person that we are attracted to.
No. That's not what is meant by objective.
#77
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Tarik
How is love an objective standard? 
Because the God I believe in wants us to love.
Objective means 'not dependent on mind'. Love and wants are necessarily mind dependent.

#78
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,743
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5

--> @Shila
Love objectifies the parts of a person that we are attracted to.
SkepticalOne: : No. That's not what is meant by objective.
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 etc. etc.

#79
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,333
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Tarik
I didn’t say they’re the same thing, I’m saying that assessing the state of your existence is pointless if you don’t love yourself.
What you find pointless is irrelevant. Objectivity means independent of the mind. Demonstrate that love is the standard for morality independent of the mind and that well being is not.
#80
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,743
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
 Objectivity means independent of the mind. Demonstrate that love is the standard for morality independent of the mind and that well being is not.
Objectivity is not independent of mind. It is independent of personal feelings or beliefs and based only on facts and evidence.
Well being like love is a choice. Love benefits existence. Hate seeks to destroy it.
#81
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@SkepticalOne
Objective means 'not dependent on mind
Which conflicts with the definition “(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.”

because you can’t consider and represent facts without a keyword MIND.

#82
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
What you find pointless is irrelevant.
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.
#83
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Shila
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 etc. etc.
Objective and objectify are not synonymous. 
#84
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Tarik
Which conflicts with the definition “(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.”
Even if we utilize your definition, love and wants are personal feelings and not objective. Ie. Philosophically or scientifically, your standard is not objective.  

@Double_R has provided the only objective standard I've seen in this discussion: well-being. 
#85
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@SkepticalOne
love and wants are personal feelings and not objective.
They are if theirs an objective presence supporting them.
#86
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,386
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@SkepticalOne
Love and wants are internal electro-chemical responses to external stimuli.

Which we think about and label according to a linguistic standard.

We label all sorts of stuff with "LOVE".

All thought processes are internal and therefore subjective irrespective of the agreed validity of the data.
#87
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,763
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
love and wants are personal feelings and not objective.
They are if theirs an objective presence supporting them.
are you suggesting that love is some sort of object, you know, like a rock ?
#88
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
are you suggesting that love is some sort of object, you know, like a rock ?
No
#89
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,763
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tarik
are you suggesting that love is some sort of object, you know, like a rock ?
No
how do you propose we measure love, you know, scientifically
#90
Tarik
Tarik's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 2,397
3
3
5
Tarik's avatar
Tarik
3
3
5
-->
@3RU7AL
how do you propose we measure love, you know, scientifically
Not sure you can.