Total posts: 2,481
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
No its not, its referring to whether something is true with or without a mind.
What are you referring to when you say it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
We're talking about the view that things benefiting humans are good and things causing negatives towards them is bad, thats a subjective take.
Whether or not something is subjective is a semantics question, also words and their meanings.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Okay so give me an example of context changing, and what’s the purpose of semantics if people are just going to interpret things the way they want to? Can it be that some interpretations are just wrong?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Okay so if I said they won the game then that statement is misleading because I didn’t address context, now if I said they won the game because they cheated then the narrative is completely different because context is a fundamental truth that exists and in this context cheating is the fundamental truth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Contextualization is also a fundamental truth, I notice every time you attempt to defend your point you dig yourself deeper by introducing more objectivity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
...But language is a fundamental truth and so is logic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
it is the framing that something beneficial to humans is good and something negative to humans is bad, that framing is subjective
Not really considering along those lines that’s how those terms are defined I mean will you really argue against someone defining good as beneficial and bad as negative?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Did you read my last post on your well-being argument?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
or substantiate your objections against my syllogism
I did with a question, unless this
By the empirical results?
Was the answer? Which I ask for clarification because I don’t know if your answering a question with a question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Well if he’s in heaven I guess that beats being stuck on earth with ignorant atheists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Well we don’t live in a world of what ifs we live in a world of what is and what is is God exists, do you agree with that? If not how do you prove
It is universally and necessarily truethat “murder is wrongful killing,” whether anyone believes it or not and whetheror not there is a God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I'd say you were looking for affirmation of your own belief by trying to discard others.
True and hopefully that affirmation is the answer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
To me personally - it seems as if your objection with this morality is your bias towards god.
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)?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Well since you know me better then I know myself please pray tell what I’m looking for?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
But whose to say what is and isn’t positive who’s the ultimate judge of that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
But whose to say social constructs is “moral” who’s the ultimate judge of that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Okay so what is subjective morality? Because disagree or not you know what objective morality is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
What’s not used? Please reword the conclusion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
And the opposite conclusion being principles used to affirm morality are objective?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
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, 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
Now correct me if I’m wrong but wrong about what exactly? Morality being subjective?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Did you... ignore my point?
I’m still trying to figure out what that is.
The entire purpose was to explain the definition of principle and what I was referring to
You referred to evolution, everything was a blur from there.
I was using a distinction in order to strengthen the poignantcy of my line of reasoning.
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?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Well I guess we’ll never know unless we dispute, so that’s why I do it because I want answers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
That the belief system being addressed are fundamentally different, morality and evolution that is
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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Did you also give a definition of principles? Because as far as I can tell that’s just an assertion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I edited my previous post please respond to that one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
My apologies I’ll accept those definitions, but I previously disputed P2 and you’ve yet to respond to it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
What assertion did I make that I didn’t prove?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
The syllogism doesn’t work if the definitions you provided is false and since you failed to support it that’s telling.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@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.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Why because of some definition that you refused to support?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I feel that it is morally better that a god does not exist
Well morals simply can’t exist without God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
There are some people that have personalized views of God, what if that personalized view agrees with yours? Wouldn’t that be an exception to the rule?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Okay, so you don’t have the same feelings towards monotheism?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Power corupts, and absolute power, corrupts absolutely
Maybe for everyday folk like you but everyday folk isn’t the narrative is it? Your talking about God here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
So in other words your anti accountability because a God that punishes murderers and rapists is harmful right? Justice is equivalent to harm in your book?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Depends on what side of things you're looking at.
Created: