Total posts: 2,481
-->
@Stephen
Where did the fear come from in the first place?
I don’t know, maybe the answer is subject to the person but that’s a separate and more in depth question from the original forum post and my question wasn’t rhetorical BTW you said you were going to answer it here and you still haven’t, all you did was ask more questions based on my answer.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
you appear to have left out something about "they don't want to go to hell" , if I'm correct?
Yeah that sounds about right.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
That'll be fear then?
…So the avoidance of fear and the seeking of happiness (heaven) is important no?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Facts are not subject to proof. Belief in a fact by definition is, because proof is literally defined as “that which makes someone believe”.
That latter sentence doesn’t justify the claim that facts aren’t subject to proof, it just makes it more redundant. All you literally did was add an extra variable to the claim I already made.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Anyone who understands logic understands that, so when you attack my point because it’s hypothetical that says way more about you than it does about me.
Well your hypothetical doesn’t logically follow because morality and it’s objective nature is predicated on reality not hypotheticals that didn’t and won’t happen and your need to use the example of torturing children to make the argument that morality is subject to God’s will isn’t necessary, that argument stands without that.
The hypothetical exposes the source
And reality doesn’t?
If the answer is moral, then morality is subject to gods will (aka subjective).
I entertained your “subject to” argument long enough and where did it get us? Back to this circle, so now it’s my turn to ask you a question, since facts are subject to proof does that make facts subjective? If you answer yes then your practically dismissing the existence of objectivity all together and not just in regards to morality which is a much larger issue and if you answer no then your the one that’s being incoherent because you conflate “subject to” with subjectivity in regards to morality but you don’t do it in regards to the question I just asked you. Those are your only two options, I’ve already explained why. Let me know if you have any actual thoughts on that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
If the answer is moral, then morality is subject to gods will (aka subjective).
Except God’s ACTUAL will doesn’t match the will of your incoherent hypothetical (hence why you thought of it), it’s coherent and objective. It’s pathetic how you bring up hypothetical nonsense and try to use it as an argument for reality thinking it suits you. What ifs isn’t what is dude.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
...is actually NO, not yes. Torturing infants for fun would not be immoral...
The yes was in regards to God’s capability to issue commands not what that command should be classified as, hence why I added the caveat after saying yes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Is that a fair way to understand your statement?
Yes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Why would it not be immoral?
Because God commanded it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that torturing infants for fun is objectively, necessarily immoral.Does God have the capability of issuing the command to torture infants for fun? Yes or No?
Yes, but under that pretense it wouldn’t be immoral.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
If that’s the case then God is limited in what decisions he can make which makes him impotent.
No, it means He’s only WILLING to command moral acts, there’s a difference. Not opting to choose an immoral act isn’t equivalent to not having the ability to choose an immoral act.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Let’s try this… when God gives a moral command, does he command it because it is moral or is it moral because he commands it?
Why does it have to be either or? The two aren’t mutually exclusive and the term vice versa exists for a reason, so for arguments sake my answer is both.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The reason it falls apart is because it is incoherent.
No what’s incoherent is asking me questions on a claim I never said.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Please explain in what sense a deity differs from a person.
Infinite knowledge and power, God has it and a regular person doesn’t.
I’m asking you because it’s your claim.
Except it’s not. I believe God gives moral commands that’s all, I said nothing of what came first between the chicken or the egg, and like I said above regular people like you and I don’t have infinite knowledge so you’re looking in the wrong place if you expect me to fill the gaps for you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Subjective means *subject to* the individual. In your question, it is subject to God.
Even if I agreed to that definition God isn’t an individual He’s a deity.
Let’s try this… when God gives a moral command, does he command it because it is moral or is it moral because he commands it?
I don’t know ask God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Because such a standard is 'subject' to his choosing.
That doesn’t mean the same thing as subjective. The weather is subject to change, that has nothing to do with anyones personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
A standard is what everything else is judged against, but one has to choose which standard applies. That will always be subjective.
…Your begging the question, how does God’s choosing of a standard make that standard subjective?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
but even if he exists he is just as subjective a standard as any other you can point to.
How so?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Though in my experience, stroppy teenagers find it impossible to ignore.
Well you got the wrong one because I’m not a stroppy teenager.
You’ve been blocked.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Though just for fun, I will complicate things
I’ve always had a feeling you were a troll but this is the utmost confirmation, your next post better be something of significance otherwise you’ll be blocked like your boyfriend.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Are you confused?
By you? Yes, you don’t specify what you mean in regards to the validity of data, so I just assumed it was all correct.
I sometimes think that they have an underlying ideological or spiritual agenda, but nothing like is ever forthcoming.
How about you be forthcoming and specify what you mean in terms of data.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Information can be accurately representative of something, or inaccurate, or even complete nonsense.
But usually that inaccuracy is classified as misinformation to avoid confusion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Well the simple fact is, the above user is of the same opinion as me.
Except we’re not arguing opinions we’re arguing facts, and whether or not misinformation is classified as information is besides the point, the point is “information” is implied to be true and if it were false it would be uttered as such hence why I brought up misinformation which you argued makes no difference but that’s just ignorance because there’s a huge fundamental difference between true and false.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
See above.
In case you didn’t know I blocked the user above, so unless you want this discussion to continue going forward I suggest it remain between us meaning you express your own thoughts rather than relying on a middleman (that I blocked) to argue for you if not you will receive the same end result that they did.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
You will see that the "keywords", link misinformation and information.
Then why isn’t those same keywords used in the definition of information? Because those keywords is a distinction not a link.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
The keywords false and inaccurate is what separates information from misinformation, my argument still stands.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I already checked mine before I asked you to check yours.
It’s all hearsay unless you cite it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
My views on human process and function have been made quite clear, countless times.
If that were true the semantic game wouldn’t be in motion.
Misinformation is information. (Check your dictionary).
I suggest you check yours.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
OK......So explain what it all is that matters......And why.
Maybe you should open up and display what you mean in terms of data, because I’m assuming true rather then false but by the looks of it it all seems the same to you when it’s not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Doesn't matter if it's misinformation.
That’s where your wrong it definitely matters, it all matters.
Do you have any information, other than semantics, to impart.
I don’t think any other information would be of use if we can’t agree on simple semantics.
Though repetition can become tedious.
Yet you insist on doing so 🤷🏾♂️.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Misinformation is simply reproduced misinformed data.
…For arguments sake, if your not going to make the distinction between data clear (which you haven’t yet you accuse me of not opening up) then the proper assumption is to assume it’s all informed and not misinformed and there’s a huge fundamental difference between those two things, you may or may not like semantics but you’re practically begging for it in all your responses.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Assumptions are data.
On the contrary, if an assumption is untrue then that’s misinformation and misinformation is not data in fact it’s the opposite.
I'm just expecting more of the same.
Right back at ya because you haven’t been forthcoming at all throughout this discussion, all you’ve done is give me the run around trying to figure you out and it’s all confusing nonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Yep...Morality is data Tarik.
But you called that an assumption in post #232
But he seems reluctant to share.
Kinda like how you seem reluctant to give a clear and consistent argument, once we’ve crossed that bridge maybe then we can discuss me but your confused enough as it is so maybe you should think about your thoughts and beliefs before you ask about mine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
And semantics has always been your thing.
Well maybe if it were your thing you wouldn’t say things like this and I quote
Nonetheless, morality is data
You said this buddy, I didn’t make it up out of thin air.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
One can never tell with Tarik's semantics packed discussions.
Maybe if your delivery made more sense we wouldn’t have to resort to semantics.
Correctness was a reference concerning the accuracy data, rather than the morality of ideas.
Nonetheless, morality is data assessment and output, and therefore variable relative to data input.
The former quote you distinguish data from morality and the latter you conflate the two terms, yet you wonder why I resort to semantics? It’s your own fault buddy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Correctness was a reference concerning the accuracy data, rather than the morality of ideas.
Why are you referring to data when the discussion is about morality?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
But one would not refer to correct and incorrect as moral concepts.
Then why did you refer to correctness when the focus was morals?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
In fact the basis of this discussion was the understanding of right and wrong, rather than the implications of correctness and incorrectness.
But YOUR THE ONE that mentioned correctness and incorrectness first so if anyone’s losing track of this discussion it’s you not me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Things are never so cut and dried Tarik, to be able to make sweeping generalizations.
Understanding would be damn near impossible if we didn’t though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Prove what?
That correctness is irrelevant in regards to info,
I beg to differ hence why I there’s information and misinformation, big difference.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
The proof is in the data,
So prove it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
What I’m doing, is making it completely untenable for you to continue this dishonesty; by offering you something that, were you telling the truth, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for you not to take me up on it.
How about the fact that I know your lying about the offer, how do I know your lying? Because throughout this discussion that’s all you’ve done, no matter what justification I provide you always write it off because you don’t like it so stop yanking my chain.
I’ve warned you before and I’m a man of honesty/good faith so I’m keeping my promise.
You’ve been blocked.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
How do you know it’s data and not misinformation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Yes
Well I can’t really tell because I’m truly starting to question your integrity throughout this discussion and I’ve had it up to here speculating so I’m just gonna say this, if you don’t say something of substance in your next post you will be blocked, the choice is yours.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
For what possible reason would you not be interested in $100 for charity, or $200? I’m not asking you to compete in a challenge - simply to post the justification you appear to have implied you have given
Do you not understand English?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
I will pay $100 to a charity of your choice, $200 to you personally; I will never reply to you again, change my about status to “Tariks Bitch” and completely concede everything said so far
I think I made it abundantly clear that I don’t care what you do in terms of that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
I told you exactly why and how the quote was out of context
Why? Because of this
go on to say more things
I already told you
More things that don’t change the meaning of the quote I quoted, LIAR #187 lol.
So if the remainder of this discussion is us just referencing things we’ve said already then prey tell what’s the fun in that other than you trying to be annoying and throw me off my game.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
That’s a stupid confirmation to ask, why would I quote it if I didn’t believe it was justifiable?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
So you’re agreeing that you haven’t, at any point, provided an argument or justification of why your quote was definitely valid and in context?
If you need to reread post #198 go right ahead, I assure you I made no mistakes with that one.
Created: