Tarik

One of the many reasons the atheist position baffles me.

Then what’s not to like?

So much for a guy that doesn’t like labels, but at least your coming to terms with who you really are.

Actually, my best argument is asking what you believe in philosophically and chances are whatever it is it isn’t logically sound without God.

Is this a so called “argument” I’ve failed to address? How broad is the agreement? Enough for their to be consensus? I think not, like I said before a lot of the stuff you were saying in those three paragraphs was all filler that I can rebut in one sweep, you say I keep repeating myself but me repeating myself is me addressing your argument, if that bothers you maybe you should drop the well-being point otherwise have a nice day.

No you’ve failed to address mine, difference is when I simply ask you to clarify which argument you’re referring to you fly off the handle, like I said before I’m not ignoring anything I’m just not gonna match you paragraph to paragraph I’ll address the other arguments once we get through the first one, but if you have a problem with that then that’s your prerogative have a nice day.

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.

I’ve blown my shot because you don’t want to be specific? Interesting, you too.

As of now the argument is whether or not there’s a definition is it not? Because that’s exactly what I’m talking about.

It’s not that simple, it’s not just a matter of what I think it’s a matter of what is and if there was a definition there would be consensus and there is none, therefore there’s no definition, I’m repeating myself because so are you just because you say there’s a definition that doesn’t make it so, and those three paragraphs were all filler, nothing of substance I rebutted all that in one sweep.

As far as I’m concerned if there is no consensus definition then there is no definition, so you can interpret it your way and an opposing viewpoint can interpret it theirs, so I think over the course of this discussion the most objective approach is to just toss the word to the wayside for now.

I prefer to tackle one thing at a time so I’m not gonna match you on the long paragraphs, but the balls in your court you can lead the way in this discussion what do you want to address first?

Okay first of all drop the well being point because the fact that there’s no consensus around the definition means that anyone is free to define it as they please meaning an opposing definition is just as good as yours, second emotional fallacy doesn’t apply when you add logic to the equation and if there is indeed a God (which I believe there is) then it is completely logical to love Him, and don’t be ridiculous if the subject is murder and you say you shouldn’t murder because I care about humans then that would be an emotional fallacious argument.

I don’t know what your talking about but whatever I’ll substantiate my claim, your “moral” view is centered around humans because you value them, that means you care and caring is emotional therefore it’s an emotional appeal once you can accept this I’ll move on to your fallacy fallacy argument.

What exactly are you referring to? Your definitions of objective and subjective?

I can easily counter that by saying the opposite, that argument means nothing.

So simply saying “I am a moral subjectivist” explains how you came to the conclusion? Okay

I still stand by my argument I only conceded earlier for sake of the discussion and since your “moral” view is predicated on emotional appeal it’s fallacious by default, feel free to point me in the right direction of your forum and debates otherwise have a nice day.

...Your emotional response proves you have an emotional appeal to the loved one that was harmed, and that emotional appeal shapes your “moral” view on “well being” come on man it’s not that far fetched.

Seriously dude, if someone harmed a loved one of yours and you respond by crying then that’s an emotional response, happiness, sadness, that’s all emotional why because you care and caring is emotional period.

I’m talking about the question in regards to emotions.

You didn’t answer the question and merely denying isn’t explaining.

You said your appeal was a subjective one but would you have that subjective appeal if you didn’t have emotions?

So if you call someone a logical person isn’t it their mind that’s the basis behind that conclusion?

So what about logic? Doesn’t that stem from the mind? Unless you think that’s subjective as well.

Ah, so you want to nitpick the definition where it suits you huh?

I’ll get back to that but for now I’ll say, if your standard of subjective is contingent on the mind then what about other degrees of subjectivity like our tastes in music isn’t that contingent on the ears, or food isn’t that contingent on our tastebuds? Unless you don’t think those subjects such as food and music are subjective?

Due to your emotional appeal of humans correct?

Okay, so what subjective reason do you value human life?

According to you the human mind is biased in its entirety, so if my mind says the earth is round what bias is that? Unless you consider logic, reason, and objective facts biases, by that logic objectivity is impossible because we have to use our minds to know what we know.

No, humans are the only species capable of conceptualizing morality (well maybe not all humans) so that’s just flat out wrong.

Correction I’m attributing immorality to humans, walls and rocks aren’t immoral even by your definition because they have no mind.

Forget I said that, anyway we’re straying from the narrative and that’s immoral humans are harmful not all harm is immoral and by definition I’m objectively correct.

What specific definition are you referring to includes walls and rocks?

Judging by the synonym you used “injure” let me ask you a question can a wall or a rock get injured or feel any form of physical pain?

When did I say that was my argument?

No you didn’t but if you feel you did then that’s your prerogative, have a nice day.

I said what I said earlier because I thought you’ll drop the point if I did but I guess you’re gonna die on this hill so I’ll say this, the objective answer is it’s immoral the why’s is a separate issue, if a basketball team wins a game then the answer is they won, if you get into the why’s and discover it’s a result of cheating then so be it but that’s a separate conversation, and that’s essentially what you’re doing conflating two separate things.

Your argument holds no weight if it’s not fitting though, what if I told you I hold a wall and a rock to the same standard as a human (even though I don’t) then the point is meaningless.

But that’s straying from the narrative though, I don’t care to get into the why’s of these things.

They were two other definitions under noun, one of them was “actual or potential ill effect or danger.”

Tell me what you see then.

Interesting, I found evil 

What does that tell you?

Okay got any synonyms for me?

Okay you got a definition of harm for me?

No but immoral means harm, almost like apple means fruit but fruit doesn’t necessarily mean apple.

What you need to understand is there is no subjective biases in regards to semantics, words mean what they mean period.

What bias is that?