Total posts: 2,481
Posted in:
-->
@Elliott
No, I wouldn’t have guessed that, I have always found the concept of hell truly horrible.
Which is exact why attempting to avoid such a place (through valuing life for example) is logically justified, my original point all along.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Elliott
So what do you consider to be nature of this value that can only be objectively proven through God?
Obviously I can’t speak for you or any other atheist (hence why your ideology still ponders me) but for me the constant fear of hell is why I don’t take life for granted, but I’m sure you could’ve guessed that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Elliott
When I say survival is valuable, I refer to human survival not everything that exists, they would still continue to exist without us
I know what you’re referring to I’m just applying that reference to everything else to expose the inconsistency.
the alternative relates to why our existence is valuable
But if nothing is of value then that applies to everything including alternatives. Meaning in other words existence and nonexistence aren’t valuable, you’re not doing any favors by only addressing the latter especially since it wasn’t apart of the argument to begin with.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Elliott
However, to address your point, the value of survival it is an end in itself as the alternative is non existence, which has no value.
By that logic everything that exists is valuable which contradicts with the things you don’t care about, mentioning the alternative is a deviation from the actual narrative.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Elliott
which in terms of survival is about as good as it gets.
But the value of survival can only be objectively proven through God, there’s no other logical justification.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
I never called nihilism an appeal to emotion fallacy.
No, but you equated my nihilism argument with a fallacious example, again false equivalency fallacy stupid 😛
In fact I just explained how appeal to emotion fallacies work. You clearly didn’t read it.
I read it it’s just your “explanation” didn’t cover all the bases, I simply filled the gaps that’s all.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
And I can claim “ice cream is delicious” is a fact. That doesn’t make it so.
Okay? But nihilism isn’t an emotional appeal fallacy (like your ice cream comparison) it’s the complete opposite of emotional, making your comparison a false equivalence fallacy, nice try though.
I suggest you spend some time reading to try and figure this stuff out.
Perhaps you should do some reading on fallacies, because you’re spewing them out left and right 😛
Created:
-->
@Double_R
That’s not an assertion of fact, it’s an assertion of one’s values (or lack thereof).
The two aren’t mutually exclusive, you can assert that life having no meaning and morality being an illusion is a fact.
Why is this so complicated for you?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
The definition of nihilism genius.
Which says exactly what I said, that life is meaningless and morality as you see it is an illusion.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Nihilism isn’t a truth claim so this makes absolutely no sense.
And you’re saying this based off what? Your emotional appeal of life and other people?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
"if we don't have free will then we're just a collection of atoms doing what they're programmed".
If nihilism is true then life is meaningless and morality as you see it is an illusion, why is the opposing response for the former fallacious but not the latter?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
not because there is any error in logic within it
Error meaning no logic, no error meaning logic, so again I ask you where is the logic?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
What free will example?
"if we don't have free will then we're just a collection of atoms doing what they're programmed". The idea that we're just following our programming is grim, so this argument seeks to convince someone as to what the truth of our nature is (an objective truth) based on what they would like it to be ("I don't want to be pre programmed, so I'll believe our nature is whatever means we're not programmed").
Created:
-->
@Double_R
The fallacy in “appeal to emotion facially” is logic.
So where’s the “logic” in your free will example?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
you took the conversation there
You took it there first, not me.
Logic has nothing to do with that.
Exactly which is why it’s called appeal of emotion fallacy and not appeal of logic fallacy.
Created:
-->
@K_Michael
I'm having trouble keeping track of what you're arguing over.
We’re mainly arguing over morality and whether or not it’s objective or subjective.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
You still can’t separate them.
I wouldn’t have to separate anything if you didn’t add the assessment variable into the equation to begin with.
The statement above is simply stating a fact.
True, but when you argue in favor of it then what is it?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Can you point to one thing I’ve said that would lead you to believe you needed to explain this to me?
In post #834 when you said
Truth is an assessment
and you can’t assess without the operative word “cognizance”.
But if referencing other sources leads to our agreement then what do you have to say about this https://iep.utm.edu/cognitive-relativism-truth/#SH5a
Now I don’t expect you to read this whole article (although I think it may do you some good) just the paragraph where the link directly takes you.
Caring about well being is purely emotional
If that’s true then it’s also credence to my appeal of emotion fallacy argument, thank you very much.
Created:
-->
@K_Michael
@Double_R
That’s why rational conversation about reality can only be had from the point at which we agree that something is an objective fact.
K_Michael said it best in post #956
A fact does not require you to be cognizant of it to be true.
This is what I been trying to tell you, like I said I’m not on an island by myself.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Because anyone can claim something is or is not an objective fact and there will never be a way to resolve this.
So did you join this debate site for the sole purposes of wreaking havoc? Because if you don’t believe in resolutions to disputes then what’s the point of disputing?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
In this sense the term “objective fact” itself is up for scrutiny because in this philosophical conversation we’re talking about what qualifies something as an objective fact from our philosophical point of view.
If objective fact is contextually accurate why say the term is up for scrutiny?
this is made clear.
I’m sure most people feel that way in regards to there arguments, if you want another reference pertaining to mine just let me know, because I’m not on an island by myself in case you were thinking that.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Well being itself isn't a fact, it's a value.
So what was the objective fact that you were referring to when you said
An objective fact in this context
Because I don’t know what you’ve been reading but I was reading the context as well-being is foundational (since that’s what lead to my objective fact is foundational argument) so if it’s foundational and objective fact is the context then excuse me for putting two and two together.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
An objective fact in this context has to be accepted as such, which requires a mental process to get to that point.
Like your acceptance of well being? Isn’t it then an objective foundational fact by that logic?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
@Double_R
i'm simply pointing out that there are precious few if any "facts" that are impervious to context
Maybe, but the “context” in which Double_R and I were discussing facts is always the same.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
because you continue to insist that there is some "objective fact" that is not "context sensitive" (identical to all possible observers)
And what are you insisting? That everybody’s the same?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
do you have a few examples of "facts" that you personally consider "objective" ?
Why are you asking me this?
Created:
-->
@K_Michael
Didn't Ayn Rand have the idea that one should value your own happiness and achievement over anything else?
What’s objective about being selfish (if you agree that is)?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Different contexts is not synonymous with different meaning.
Which is what I said in post #932 (in reference to the subject matter).
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
tell me what your god wants me to do
3 how many times are you going to say the same thing?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
I didn't say we were comparing the totality of two speperate conversations
Then what was the point of asking me
Do you not understand how that conversation is entirely sperate from the conversation about facts themselves?
nothing we've talked about could be described as "comparing the content of a specific words meaning in separate conversations
I beg to differ, because that’s exactly how I would describe MY QUOTE
An objective fact is the same IN ANY CONTEXT, I don’t know why you insist on making simple concepts like this so complicated.
So no need to reread something that I recently already said.
Lastly this back and forth is filibustering from the original narrative, you can easily nip this in the bud right now by giving me an example of an objective fact having a different meaning in different contexts, considering that’s what you implied in post #930.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Do you not understand how that conversation is entirely sperate from the conversation about facts themselves?
No, we’re not comparing the totality of two separate conversations, we’re comparing the content of a specific words meaning in separate conversations, do you understand that difference?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
An objective fact in this context
An objective fact is the same IN ANY CONTEXT, I don’t know why you insist on making simple concepts like this so complicated.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
It's foundational
Objective facts are foundational.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
I would explain it, but I just did.
(In reference to the ice cream example) No, you didn’t.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
"Ice cream is delicious"
Due to one’s EMOTIONAL APPEAL of ice cream.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
@Shila
That was your response to Double_R: Subjectivity is influenced by that.
But your question wasn’t in reference to my response it was in reference to Double_R’s, hence why you quoted him.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
@Shila
If the topic has nothing to do with appeal to emotions
That’s Double_R’s argument, not mine.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Nothing about that topic has anything to do with appeal to emotion fallacies.
Subjectivity is influenced by that.
Created:
-->
@K_Michael
No, looks like it's still a declarative statement.
Well in that case my original response to that declarative statement still stands.
Created:
-->
@K_Michael
my point stands.
You mean your question? Well in that case I guess it’s because I agree with it and I’m not satisfied with just feelings alone, I want them validated and God does that.
Created:
-->
@K_Michael
it was made in the context of our discussion of the Bible
or whatever informs your flavor of religion
How can you forget that caveat after you just quoted it?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
read the damn thread.
Maybe you should take your own advice.
you suddenly switched and started focusing on appeal to emotion fallacies
Which isn’t a departure from subjectivity if you read the damn thread.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Yes, and I ignored that part because it's not relevant to anything we've been discussing.
So subjectivity and morality isn’t relevant to anything we’ve been discussing? Because that’s what was addressed in that post, don’t act slow now.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Nothing about our conversation had anything to do with appeal to emotion fallacies.
Maybe you should refer back to post #853 to help bridge the gap you seem to think is missing.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
I'm sorry if you don't understand how this works.
No, I’m sorry you don’t know how appeal of emotion fallacy works.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
how do you know "there is a standard"
Based off of subsets of His standard I do know, like what Shila alluded to in post #840
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
how can you know ?or, who do you think can know ?
Let me just stop you while you’re ahead, if you think asking me these redundant questions is gonna lead to me conceding that morality is subjective, then you got another thing coming.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
if you can't know what god wants
I never said you can’t know, I said I don’t know.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
I then said that if you are a sociopath then you are not worth my time to debate morality.
Are you asserting that morality could be debated? Because if it could then that would make it objective by nature, because subjectivity is influenced by emotion and emotional arguments in debate is a fallacy, making subjective morality a fallacy as well.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
That makes no sense because in regards to what you think there’s nothing to figure out, whether or not what you think aligns with God and is true is a different matter.
Created: