3RU7AL

I thought that it was established that there are no objective facts. There are only beliefs and perspectives. 

No it isn't. Words have meanings. Meanings convey particulars. Particulars convey syllogisms. Syllogisms convey logic. Logic conveys consistency, and consistency conveys truth.

Free will definition: the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

at what point is your "discretion" in any way, disconnected from your accumulated experience ?

That too is within the purview of free will to be selective of one’s accumulated experience.

Your argument, is that because women who commit Crime A, and are prosecuted under law A are typically given Punishment A - that a women can decide to commit crime B, and largely expect to be prosecuted under law A, and receive punishment A, rather than be prosecuted and punished for Crime B under per Law B. 

Free will definition: the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

It clearly states free will is acting on one's own discretion all things considered.

i'm glad you've managed to convince yourself, next time perhaps you might try and convince the person you're actually speaking with

I’d like to know more about your “free-will is not only not justifiable as a necessity, it is logically incoherent” nonsense.

I can go on an on but honestly, there is no decent argument that can support that God does not exist.

which god are you talking about again ?

If you want us to choose among your various Gods, we are going to need you to list them or something, describe them, and you know, tell us if you’ve given them names.

no "one true god" makes way more sense. but how the hell are we supposed to pick the right one ?

How many do you think there are?

free-will is not only not justifiable as a necessity, it is logically incoherent

Oh pulease, how about you  explain this logically incoherent statement. 

Your argument, is that because women who commit Crime A, and are prosecuted under law A are typically given Punishment A - that a women can decide to commit crime B, and largely expect to be prosecuted under law A, and receive punishment A, rather than be prosecuted and punished for Crime B under per Law B. 

You completely ignore the critical issue in your post - to fixate on some random minutae that has no bearing and continually and repeatedly ignore the arguments in the post when they’re made.

Okay so define morality, because chalking it up to feelings doesn’t really set it apart from anything (e.g, music).

Morality: an innate sense of fairness.

The distinction from the broader category of "feelings" is that "feelings" don't have to necessarily refer to an innate sense of fairness.

Atheism: there is no god, therefore there is no afterlife, therefore nothing you do or think matters at all. There is no moral standpoint, only what you like matters.

As it says you're not permitted to discriminate based on gender, religion, sex, political ideology etc.

and strangely, YHWH commands people to kill early and often

I don’t follow.

Instead you appear to fixate on cases where I am characterizing your argument pretty accurately but used the word “always” instead of “mostly”.

This is just a semantic non argument - because you are unable to address my central point.

despite it completely refuting one of your central points.

You have mischaracterized the law by saying you can decide to murder your child - implying that you won’t be prosecuted for murder. That’s false

What you’re doing here - is really just a semantic objection to something I said.

I’m arguing that their revocation of consent is done for very different reasons in recognition of very different harms, i.e. that the symmetry you’re trying to establish between the impact of the mother’s capacity to revoke consent and that of the father is, in fact, not symmetrical.

if God wants all people to believe in him then he must make himself known to all people and not just a few.

Thou shall not kill.

So stopping companies from deciding what to do is also functionally impossible.

I'm sure you're already familiar but Tate being banned off social media platforms is not a violation of his free speech rights (these social media platforms are private entities).

The platforms we are discussing have gone beyond "private entities" - they are essentially market places of free ideas, akin to a public space. They have such a monopoly that their "cancelling" of someone is in fact a violation of a major portion of their free speech. This is much like certain malls in California - though they are "private business", they are compelled by law to allow peaceful protest. I think this is reasonable - though the mall is technically a private entity, it operates in a way such that it is representative of a public place. 

im a soft deontologist

It's another case of legacy media destroying someone outside of their locus of control.

Those who wish to ban him on the principled front, that his ideas are "harmful" can essentially be discarded without much effort on the grounds of free speech. However, I think the primary allegation against Andrew Tate is that he has abused women, and that there are videos surfacing in which he is both verbally and physically abusive too. I haven't looked into this because frankly, it was almost a decade ago and shouldn't be something to be cancelled about, but from what I understand, there is debate regarding whether the women in the videos were consenting to what they were undergoing, but admittedly, I'm quite skeptical of that. 

You appear to be continually selectively quoting me, failing to respond to key arguments, ignoring specific and targeted attacks on your argument for whatever reason; but that’s the whole point, laid out.

The idea that you can decide to kill your child before twelve months is utter bullsh*t. Invented from whole clothe.

Given that you’re kinda jumping around, we’ve now got to the point you seem to acknowledge that woman are convicted of actual murder, and generally get jail time - but less than for someone killing a stranger: which we both know is what I meant.

Would you be interested in explaining to me? I like to imagine i do, we will see though.

stands once we forget about everything except the fact both are "resources" we own. Evidently this is necessarily reductionist of other facts of the matter, and if someone doesn't want to negate those other facts of the matter, athias's agreement does not stand as consistent. 

have talked about the necessary lack of true meaning and nihilism that atheism will bring.

The best argument for God is the argument from intelligent processes (my own argument).

NOT, the argument from intelligent design....design and processes invoke different things, the term "design"  forces skeptics to focus on the imperfection of such a "design" whereas if you get people to look at how obvious it is that the processes of the universe correlate with intelligent productions then it is very easy to correlate those processes with thought and intelligence by what they produce as a whole.

We're not looking for perfection so no need to invoke design but function.

The universe is nothing short of a succession of processes that create desired outcomes, that is, outcomes that benefit and sustain that which produces effects as if they knew what needed to be achieved hence....intelligence.

This goes without saying that an intelligent agency (God) is a perfect match for what we observe in the universe.

And to believe that inanimate forces could somehow generate such processes as if they had minds is really quite absurd.

I don't think there is a good argument against God, unless of course one argues from just one source of religious dogma, then their rebuttals are limited to just one source of information.

For example the argument from the problem of suffering is easily dealt with by Karma yet most people won't admit it because one, either they haven't thoroughly thought it through or they think it should be taught by the Bible and if it hasn't then it doesn't qualify lol.

The problem of evil is also dealt with when a person fully understands duality and free will in such an environment as the one we are experiencing.

The argument from why there are many paths of religious thought and observation is easily dealt with when one understands the full scope of creation and that many, many countless societies exist outside the physical world that a soul can experience and sojourn...which is also the beauty and variety of creation as a whole.

I can go on an on but honestly, there is no decent argument that can support that God does not exist.

That's my opinion of course,

which is substantiated by my own arguments if they are taken as they logically follow in any discussion.

 and cited the names of women who have been sent to prison both for murdering their babies

but that instability is directly related to the consequences of the birth or lack of recovery from it.

and gets no prison time (which is false)

Bringing the unborn into it, which you've now tried to do several times, detracts from the contradiction that you're trying to demonstrate.

You're saying instead why it causes lesser harm to give them these rights than it does to give them to the mother.

Markedly different case for a number of reasons. These kinds of analogy-based responses are attempts to find similar cases where, let's face it, there aren't any.

the father's ability to "opt out" fundamentally eliminates his obligation and foists the entire burden of that obligation onto her.

in exactly the same way, the burden on the mother is rather small in the first three months

Then for at least 6 months (whether those first 3 are small depends on the pregnancy), the mother has a physical burden to carry the child, but the father has none. If the goal is symmetry, that's an inherent asymmetry.

I’m taking specific issue with your specious characterization of a law based on bizarre hypothetical scenarios upon which you apply wild hyperbolae: that are at clear odds both with what the law actually says, and actual instances of how the law is actually applied.

- that the application of the law would treat someone who simply decides to kill their child on a whim as murder - not infanticide, because it doesn’t meet the criteria laid out. Contrary to assertions otherwise

- Prosecutions and jail time for women, in Canada for murdering their babies, and substantial jail time for infanticide back this up - contrary to your assertions otherwise.