Total posts: 2,481
-->
@SkepticalOne
You'll need to address my argument rather than the strawman you've built.
I didn’t “build” anything, you said it and once I had you in a corner chose to ignore it later, miss me with that.
Red Herring - I can make assumptions for the sake of argument or not.
Sure, but in order for your argument to be consistent you have to pick one or the other. That’s how logic works skep.
Ad Hominem - my reading comprehension has nothing to do with the point you are not addressing.
Coming from the guy that doesn’t comprehend I’ll take that as a compliment 😉.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I said (per Christianity) the *crime* (original sin) was unavoidable, and it is not obvious heaven exists, much less that anyone can get there.
1st of all your soliloquy also uttered punishment (you know the alternative to the place that’s not obvious anyone can get to according to you) “One only need consult the thread to validate this”. 2nd you need to keep the same energy dude, you’re clearly jumping around arguments from your position (it is not obvious heaven exists) and your perception of mine (per Christianity). Last and certainly not least, your reading comprehension is terrible, nowhere did I say anyone can get to heaven.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Where is the lie?
When you called punishment unavoidable, obviously heaven is how you avoid it.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Imperfection is the unavoidable crime of humanity and punishment is a given.
Imperfection + God = heaven
All you do is contradict yourself, in the first post you say punishment is a given for imperfection and is UNAVOIDABLE, and the latter you backpedal by saying it could be avoided through God. Make up your mind and start making sense please.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Post 309
Nowhere in that post was anything uttered about heaven, come correct next time.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I've said "again" a few times in this thread...I'm sure your browser search function could handle this request.
I was referring to the subject discussed that made you say again (if it wasn’t as already obvious) not just the word itself (context dude 🤦🏾♂️) let me break it down for you, you said
Again, according to your religion and your holy book, heaven
Notice the first word of that quote? Good, now I’m asking you to refer me to where you mentioned imperfection and heaven in the same sentence previously, hence why you said “again” if I’m not mistaken.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
It has nothing to do with nihilism, and applies to morality just like it applies to anything else.
Nihilists literally reject the notion of morality meaning they also reject the notion of right and wrong which is what morality is about, that’s not applicable to everything.
Morality is a system by which we judge the actions of ourselves and others.
Your begging the question here, how do you adequately define those judgements we’re making?
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Again
Please link to when you’ve said this before.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
1. You don't need to - it's explicitly spelled out in your holy book.
Unless you have scripture quoting that your argument is null and void.
So, yes, according to your religion and holy book, God does punish for imperfection.
Again don’t speak for me, and if God punishes for imperfection then how do you explain the concept of heaven “mr skeptical” because paradise doesn’t sound like much of a punishment to me.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
In the context of this conversation, imperfection and sin are synonymous. One only need consult the thread to validate this. Once again, your dishonesty is plain for all to see.
1st of all I NEVER conflated imperfection with sin. 2nd you haven’t validated anything. 3rd the only dishonest one is you for not providing any support for any of your claims.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Is original sin not a doctrine you subscribe to? If so, how do you figure your deity doesn't punish imperfection?
Imperfect is not synonymous to sin https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7916/post-links/345509
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
There is quite a difference between speaking for you and pointing out flaws in your reasoning. I was doing the latter.
Don’t know what “reasoning” your referring to but it has nothing to do with me, hence why I asked you not to claim on my behalf.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
@Shila
Because the material is considered intellectual property an expiry date is set.
Okay but what that expiry date should be was 3’s question.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
To claim something is subjective is to claim that there is no right or wrong answer.
Okay, but that doesn’t apply to morality and even if I agreed this argument is apropos with nihilism not whatever position you’ve been taking.
So no, that’s not literally what that means.
I don’t think YOU even know what you mean.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Copying someone else’s material is the same as stealing intellectual property and any form of stealing is a issue of morality.
The “subject” was mostly in reference to the timeline rather than the generally agreed principle that it’s wrong to steal.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
So it stands to reason, your moral standard allows immoral people to be considered righteous. Ie. Wrong can be right.
Wrong, please don’t speak for me.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
because it is compared to theft
And what is the timeline compared to?
i thought you said "moral people get to go to heaven" and "immoral people get to go to hell" or something like that
Imperfect is not synonymous with immoral.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
because you know what is moral and what is immoral because you know what is objectively moral
And how do you know this copyright protection subject is an issue of morality?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
that doesn't seem like a very good (and definitely NOT "objective") measure of "morality"
I’m not going to argue your mentality but I would say nobody’s perfect and if God were to punish simply based on imperfection, then every last one of us would be doomed including you.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
how do we tell which one is "moral" and which one is "immoral" ?
Why are you asking me?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
First off, the standard is the very thing you are using to judge actions against, so claiming a standard is itself moral is incoherent.
You literally used the phrase “moral standard” that literally means the standard is moral, so if you want to call yourself incoherent then by all means.
Second, I never said conflicting standards could both be moral.
Actually you did, you claimed conflicting standards as the basis as to why morality is subjective, so that literally means the same as saying conflicting standards are moral.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
immoral people still have regrets and can feel sorry and remorseful
Well if God forgave them then what separates them from anyone you call moral? Nobody’s perfect.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
My answer isn’t supposed to be a retort, it’s a description of what’s wrong with your position.
Saying “that makes sense to you but not to me” isn’t descriptive at all, it’s dismissive of the issue by stating what appears to be obvious to both parties arguing. I don’t understand why you’ve been pressing just to not even fully engage with my answer.
If we have conflicting moral standards then we are not going to agree on matters of right vs wrong, which happens all the time.
How can both standards be moral if they conflict? That’s like saying you have two left feet (I know that’s an expression but it’s not to be taken literally) it’s fundamentally impossible that goes beyond just disagreement between individuals.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
all they have to do is ask forgiveness and believe the jesus will save them
Asking for forgiveness means nothing if you’re not remorseful.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
There is nothing about that answer which justifies the assertion that getting into heaven is an objective basis for morality. That is simply the basis which you chose because it makes sense to you, just as I choose well being because it makes sense to me.
Why didn’t you start with that rather than asking me to explain? Because you saying my answer makes sense to me isn’t a retort in the slightest.
We’re all using a different moral standard which is why we have disagreements about right vs wrong.
That makes no sense, in order for morality to make sense and we grasp the concept of right and wrong it must be consistent across the board otherwise it refutes itself, I alluded to this previously here I guess you ignored it.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
accusing someone of insincerity (and or being disingenuous) is accusing someone of lyingthey are synonymous
And you’re telling me this because?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
maybe, sometimes, but you can't see anyone's level of sincerity
There is no sincerity regarding a lie.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
perhaps, but you have no way of knowing that
I know a conflicting argument when I see one.
AND, in a debate, negative characterizations are AD HOMINEM ATTACKS
How many times are you going to say the same things over and over again?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
it could be either an honest oversightor a misinterpretation on your part
Or deliberate deception on theirs.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
presupposing that these apparent conflicts are the result of deliberate deception is an ad hominem attack
Not it’s not, anything that conflicts with the truth is literally the definition of deliberate deception.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
calling someone a liar, for exampleattacks the speakerwithout addressing the argument presented
Not if your calling them a liar based on the conflicting arguments they present, we’ve been over this already.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Wikipedia isn’t a reliable source but for sake of the discussion I’ll bite anyway, it says
“Typically, this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than addressing the substance of the argument itself.”
Operative words being “substance of the argument” now explain to me how that’s much different from the influence of the dialogue?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
And once you’ve done that, explain how getting into heaven is an objective basis for morality.
Because only moral people can get into it, is this a trick question?
Morality is a system by which we judge the actions of ourselves and others.
That’s a self refuting definition when you take into account the diametrically opposed judgements people have regarding the same action, I said something similar here https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7916/post-links/341481
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
there is nothing in the definition of AD HOMINEM ATTACKthat makes exceptions for "dialogue influence"
In the words of you, “please link to” AD HOMINEM ATTACK.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Because objectivity means not subject to opinion. So everyone sharing the same opinion is irrelevant.
So what does morality mean?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
(1) you can't possibly know that (because the internal process of other people is beyond your epistemological limits)
You don’t need to know someone’s internal process to detect dishonesty, it’s as simple as reading what they say and if you understand semantics then there’s nothing more to it.
negatively characterizing the MOTIVES of your conversation partner is a text-book AD HOMINEM ATTACK
Not if there motives negatively influence there dialogue.
if you are personally convinced that your conversation partner is arguing in BAD FAITH, then abandon the conversation
If I wanted your advice on how to interact with people I would’ve asked for it.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Even if that were true, that still wouldn’t make it objective.
How so? Care to “substantiate this position”.
You ignored the rest of my post
I edited it previously, feel free to take a look.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
you don't have to ADOPT my perspective, but you do need to at least acknowledge that it exists and is valid
Some folks are just deliberately dishonest so that’s not exactly true.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
The weather is what it is regardless of what anyone thinks about it.
And Morality is what it is regardless of what anyone thinks about it.
And once you’ve done that, explain how getting into heaven is an objective basis for morality.
Because everybody loves heaven.
Created:
-->
@Shila
Shouldn’t heaven be the proof?
Indeed, hence why I included heaven as a part of my diatribe.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
There is some crossover, that doesn't mean they are the same points and it certainly doesn't mean you refuted anything meaningful.
The only “point” that crosses over is your argument regarding subjectivity and if it isn’t meaningful then you wouldn’t have made it not once but TWICE.
Now if you actually read the post you would notice that the point was made in the first two paragraphs.
The fact that I keep quoting you and responding PROVES that I’m indeed reading your posts. If you don’t like me bringing up old stuff then why do you insist on recapping? That 1st paragraph was countered with a question of my own that YOU been “tap dancing” to answer and that’s
why would you be concerned about your well being if you didn’t love yourself first?
As for the second paragraph my response would’ve been something responsive to what was said in the third paragraph hence why I skipped over it so if any paragraph could go it’s your second not your third.
Well, of you look up subjective in the dictionary does it use the words "subject to"? No, so I guess you win on that one. That's not how the word is *literally* defined, so, congratulations on the "gotcha"?
You said it yourself that you used “subject to” as emphasis to your point but clearly I reject your attempt at emphasizing because if you “READ WHAT I SAID” in the the “year old debate” I cited you would notice I took your example and used it against you showing no signs of subjectivity whatsoever, yet you want to accuse me of not reading you which is the biggest hypocrisy you uttered.
"based mainly on opinions or feelings rather than on facts"
Exactly so to tie this back to our discussion a fact is something that can be proven, so for arguments sake if love is what gets you into heaven then that’s the proof in the pudding.
Which is another of saying, *subject to* a person's say so.
Clearly you didn’t read or comprehend my example in our previous argument because if you did you wouldn’t have uttered this nonsense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ehyeh
I would disagree with you on objective morality being uncertain and also on the idea that god almost certainly doesn't exist.
I concur.
Created:
Created:
-->
@Shila
If you had a response you would have offered it instead of pretending I didn't say everything I did so you could bring back a year old debate in order to not have to address what I said.
Seriously? Don’t act like there’s no common denominator between what you recently said and the “year old debate” that I brought back up, that referral was exactly that a reference/me simply addressing what you clearly have been ignoring. Now, I didn’t like bringing it back up anymore than you did reading it again but you only have yourself to blame by using circular reasoning. If you hate this trip down memory lane so much you can simply nip this in the bud by omitting the *subject to* argument from your diatribe but clearly you find it essential otherwise you wouldn’t have said it, so this notion that I don’t address what you say is just utterly false in fact I notice it even more so to refer to the original place this circular argument even started.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
This is what running out of arguments and realizing you cannot support your own position looks like.
Have any support for that assertion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Elliott
For it to be better to have loved and lost you would need be aware of having loved and lost, in death there is no such awareness.
I admit although it isn’t identically parallel it’s similar.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Elliott
Again, I don’t really see the purpose of the question.
You said
Death doesn’t bother me, it is inevitable and when it comes I won’t be there, but until then I will try to enjoy life.
It made me think of that quote because I took it to mean that even though you’ve loved and will lose life it’s better than the alternative of not loving life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Elliott
Pleasure in existence and beauty is driven by emotion not logic.
Is it truly better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Elliott
That doesn’t mean I can’t perceive beauty, be in awe of existence and take pleasure in it, or alternatively see tragedy and feel compassion for those who suffer.
Actually it does from a logical standpoint because the reasons as to why remain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Elliott
Okay, but I still don’t see the point.
But you kinda conceded the point when you said
I’m not sure you can justify a value to it
One thing about me is I’m very uncomfortable with not having closure so maybe for most people they can be satisfied without digging deep within themselves to ask these philosophical questions and having no answers at all but I’m not wired like that, I need everything to make sense in order to find purpose in it, no pun intended.
Created: