Total posts: 3,457
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Yes, if that was the specific claim you would be correct, but you made a separate assertion that you needed god for their to be morality, that was an assertion that you have the burden to provide evidence for.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Ah I'll admit I mispoke there, my syllogism proper, refers that, "All principles used to affirm morality are from the mind" So that refers to princples in a context not talking about scientific principles, but of things asserted to be true because of a mind, for example: Justice - if this was a principle used in a moral system, you are talking about a construct, justice doesn't exist unless their is some sort of agents to want it, and it only exists because of constructs, that's more what I was referring to their, its a specific sort of principle, the ones used to affirm morality, that I'm talking about, and I use this definition:
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, but the "fundamental truth" part could be in reference to, say, evolution as much as it could be to morality, hence why i specified, used to affirm morality, because that would be talking about the "or proposition"... unless you were to prove that your principle used to affirm morality was the first type of principle, then you'd be right, unless of course that principle doesn't link up to morality without an arbitary link.
Then it would be subjective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
That was the entire point of the syllogism, and it does deductively connect them. Because principles are definitionally from the mind, and morality is made up of principles - therefore morality is from the mind, as morality is a scale of princples and using them to judge whether an act or intent aligns with those principles or not
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
My point was that principles are definitionally all from the mind
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Yet to respond! I spent like 40 posts explaining why you were about affirm, that is literally 80% of our last conversation
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
What? So your changing the goal post: You didn't have any proof those were from anywhere! to I don't like those definitions because there are other ones
Except in reference to the definition of objective, subjective definition I used was the most topical one, or the one which fit the metaphorical resolution. If you were attempting to describe whether someone, say, saved a puppy out of reasoning or emotion then the one that you used would be proper, but I never even talked about emotion, because it literally has nothing to do with it. Not to mention - most dictionary sites reference OED as the definitive source for terms.... that's why the definitions are there. You are attempting to say, "That definition because there are other definitions that don't fit that of the same word!" Then I suppose because to and too are used to describe movement and as an adjective, two doesn't describe a number?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Except... that's not whats happening here- you were the first to argue that morality was dependent on god, you are connecting a causal change there - that is a positive assertion, I was the one saying, "No, there is no causal change there, you haven't demonstrated any causal chain." You do not understand BoP if that was your take away
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
The entire thing about my positions being false, not understanding what affirmed meaned after I explained it to you 6 or 7 times, your own argument for morality only being existent if there was a god, and more, but those are just the highlights... Also, you gonna respond to that other post? At all? Or are you going to ignore it, because that's become par for course with you.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Additionally the fact that you presented no rebuttals? Yes, I guess I'm the sheep here, for using reason to decide what to believe or not, and not... well... opinion.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
So... so.. you have nothing to substantiate your claims? That's about what I expected.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I also, I spent tens and tens of post supporting my position, literally anytime I pushed you to demonstrate anything, or provide a proper rebuttal, you immediately run away or try to hand wave it away, quite interesting how thats your number one tactic
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Except... the definitions I provided were dictionary definitions supported by Oxford English Dictionary, which is why I used them. Well-being isn't even a definition I use in the syyllogism "Definitions were wrong" you have no idea what your talking about on a rhetoric level, hence you miscontrueing things and making all sorts of fallacies, you have no idea what your talking about on a deductive level, hence all of your misattributations of fallacies, as well as not understanding that you are making them, and you have no idea what your talking about on an actual content level, as you are clearly biased, anytime you hear, "Subjective" you immediately assume it to be emotional despite having been corrected multiple times.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Also:
"Zero-order correlations and descriptive statistics can be found in Table 1. In line with our expectations, power over others and personal control were positively correlated. Power over others was significantly positively correlated with aggressiveness, whereas personal control was negatively and nonsignificantly correlated with aggressiveness. Gender was significantly related only to personal control, with men scoring higher than women.Power over others and personal control as predictors of verbal aggressionWe then used structural equation modeling to examine whether power over others and personal control predicted verbal aggression in opposite directions. The measurement model for the predictors included power over others and gender as manifest variables and personal control as a latent variable with three indices. The measurement model for the outcome included aggression as a latent variable with five indices. As illustrated in Figure 1,3 whereas power over others predicted verbal aggression significantly and positively, b = 0.21 [0.14, 0.29], p < .001, personal control predicted it significantly and negatively, b = −0.17 [–0.26, –0.08], p < .001. The effect of gender was not significant, b = 0.15 [–0.08, 0.37], p = .20.We also examined whether the increase in strength of the effects of power over others and personal control were significant after we accounted for their overlap. To this end, we tested for suppression effects, in which the inclusion of both predictors in the same model increases their predictive validity (e.g., MacKinnon et al., 2000). In both models, gender was included as a covariate. We found a significant suppressing effect of personal control, unstandardized estimate = −0.08 [–0.13, –0.04], indicating that the effect of power over others strengthened when personal control was included in the model, and a significant suppressing effect of power over others, unstandardized estimate = 0.11 [0.07, 0.17], indicating that the effect of personal control strengthened when power over others was included in the model."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
You asked about a definition and you were wrong... the syllogism was my argument for that, as I already explained, you are miscontruing my reasoning, hence why I corrected you
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
No actually, because morality literally can't be objective, definitionally... which isn't the same thing. Also, no, the last time we got into this you never critiqued my syllogism beyond pedantics, and I gave you shot after shot to do so, and you didn't, so i got tired of wasting my time with you
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I mean... you can assume that, but the other thing is also true... the more power you have, the more likely you are to become corrupt.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Wrong... actually... .in fact, you can even have objective morals without god, do I buy that personally? Nope, but people claim as much. I don't think morality could ever be more than subjective. That doesn't mean that there are no morals, it just means that unlike you, I don't depend on someone else for them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
You doubt its a real thing? Interesting, that say a lot more about you than it does me. You are correct in a manner of speaking, it's a philosophic ideal, and a fairly demonstrated one at that. Its based on a simple principle, the more access something has to something, they more they will want it, consume it, use it, etc.. That's basic stuff, but it logically concludes, that someone with power will want to use it, and speaking generally, its a lot easier to use things for your own gain then it is for others. Most gods wouldn't have the binding of evolution or the need for others. You can not believe it, but you haven't put an ounce of thought into it. Quite ironic.
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
So basically..... a bunch of unproven assumptions (with some truth sprinkled in there for maximum persuasion), some either misunderstandings or misrepresentations of science (technically you misunderstanding would still be a misrepresentation but its meant to highlight the dichotomy between intent and no intent), and the fact that scientists change their mind whenever new evidence comes to light? We have believed that the earth has orbited the sun for nearly a millennium, that hasn't changed. You are assuming a lot of things here, not to mention, ignoring nuance. Of course, as our technology rapidly (and I do mean rapidly) advances we get better data, more accurate understandings, etc, because these things are based on evidence. Evidence which forms a preponderance, where that majority of evidence points is where we follow, you can believe all of this if you feel like - but its unsubstantiated. The evidence points out that our old understanding was incorrect, and that is explained so much, why these "dating" or any outdated method is wrong. Its not because people "change their mind according to mainstream media" its because of reason and evidence. in fact - science has been all about breaking away from what the masses thought and using investigation and observation to fuel beliefs instead of bandwagon.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Conway
I mean... yes? I wouldn't worship much of anything. Its not my specific motivation for being an antitheist or anything else really, that's a completely independent thought for me
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I mean? If they had the exact same moral claims as I did? With the exact same motivations and reasonings? Because as you know I have pretty specific moral views, I very much doubt that, but I feel that the net affect would be loss and not benefit, and again, absolute power absolutely corrupts, I don't know how I would exactly react, but I feel most any mind, even more intelligent minds, would be corrupted by such power that any god enjoys. That is why I say, "I feel" because I don't assert these things with enough confidence to defend that position precisely. Exactly because of things like that, if there was an antitheist scale I'd be... 6 or 7ish. where 10 is the most antitheist
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
No I have the feeling towards all god(s), I simply said 'gods' because it was was all inclusive. I have very specific problems with a lot of monotheistic god's.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
They did it incorrectly, I never said i wanted to end religion, I said that i thought that it was better that no god exists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Did I ever say that? No, I did not, and my primary reason for being against a god's existence has nothing to do with the christian one, I would argue - that as the christian god is defined as all good, that any god governing this world, necessarily could not be the christian god, but that isn't even my point. My point is that any god would have a mind, and as people often know: Power corupts, and absolute power, corrupts absolutely. I think the greeks and romans got it right with their interpretation of what gods would be like.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
For the rebuttal, I noticed you fact checked the news cite, but not the specific study, which i think is the real citation that Dr. Franklin was providing well, giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
I was referring to the specific paper written by Lott.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I don't "need to be one" I simply am one. I feel that it is morally better that a god does not exist, I feel that a god would do more harm than good - and this especially applies to the incantations that theists believe in.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Do you have any evidence of your claims, did you even read it? Its not just foundless claims, here is what the website actually talks about, and explains pretty in depth:
Lott’s statistical analysis includes far too many variables and controls - a tell-tale sign of statistical chicaneryOne cardinal rule that Statistics 101 students learn is that when a variable is included in a statistical analysis, often referred to as a regression model, there must be a sound theoretical justification for its inclusion. A regression model measures how several factors simultaneously affect an outcome being measured. If a researcher includes too few factors in a model, there is a threat that the analysis can leave out something important - a problem methodologists refer to as “omitted variable bias.”On the other hand, a well-reasoned regression analysis will also be careful not to include too many variables. If a researcher were to just slap together a slew of variables without much thought, obviously, the validity of the findings could also be suspect. From a research design perspective, including too many variables can give other researchers the wrong impression, namely that a paper’s author kept adding new variables to a model until the model produced desirable results.Statisticians tend to strike a balance between having too few and too many predictors in a regression model. When statisticians see a suspicious research design with an unreasonable number of variables or controls, it can be a sign that someone is trying to gloss over the results. For those who regularly read academic papers, 10, 20 or even 30 predictors could conceivably pass the smell test.Lott’s analysis sets off the “too many variables” alarm because it purports to measure the effects of more than 50 causal variables on a dependent variable: voter turnout (and 50 is a conservative number, since his model controls for other factors like county and year). Such unwieldy regression models can detect statistically significant relationships that, in reality, are just random noise caused by the interaction of so many variables.Moreover, the results of oversaturated regression models like Lott’s can be extremely sensitive to minor changes in research design, like dropping one or two variables. In fact, Lott’s work was singled out as being especially sensitive to these kinds of minor changes. When the National Research Council reviewed Lott’s gun research, a panel noted that his findings were “highly sensitive to seemingly minor changes in the model specification and control variables.”He doesn’t rethink his model in the face of implausible and erroneous results.Ultimately an oversaturated research design will produce empirical findings that are not valid. The interactions between, and correlations among, so many variables can produce unreliable and imprecise findings. Naturally, Lott’s analysis produces estimates that are simply implausible. His paper finds that certain ballot amendments, those relating to business regulation, decrease turnout by a whopping 12 percent. He also finds that labor reform ballot measures increase turnout by almost 19 percent. As Michael McDonald at the University of Florida noted, anyone who studies elections should be immediately suspect of such findings.He doesn’t have enough relevant observations.While he purports to be examining the effect of voter ID laws on turnout, the time period he chose and state policies he studied will not reveal much. For example, Indiana was the first state in the country to pass a strict photo-voter ID law and the first Indiana election with the law in place was the state’s 2006 primary. Lott’s paper looks at the data from 1996-2006, and therefore can say little about the effects of the nation’s strictest voter ID laws because it only includes one election where a strict ID law was in place. To be fair, Lott makes this distinction clear in the abstract of his paper. But his paper and presentation, whether intentionally or not, muddy the waters. Lott’s research only evaluates state ID laws that have fail safes to make sure voters can access the ballot, like an affidavit option for voters that lack the necessary ID or laws that permit voters to bring various forms of ID, like a utility bill, which will not predict how strict ID laws affect turnout.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
No problemo, I kind of live in an all republican household so I have a lot of sources tabbed
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Do you mean like the famous list that they would pretend to read off of and arrest or kill anyone who they didn't like, acting under the guise of, "They were communists!" those guys?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Provide citations and examples please, if you want to make a claim, back it up. Did you notice that I didn't just say, "His study is biased and has been debunked." I actually provided sources
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Its almost like arguing, "Why wouldn't you want the Joker to exist? Why are you so against him! He doesn't exist." Which... you know.... I don't think nearly any sane person would want the Joker to exist, being an antitheist is like being an antijokerist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
I knoow right? Obviously I just hate god because I want to be gay! I wanna sin and cheat my entire life! That's something I want to be, a thief and someone that has zero interpersonal relationships because - I want to pathologically lie.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I applaud you for actually having evidence, but I would ask that you look a bit more into the paper before blindly accepting it:
"On Tuesday, Lott will present findings from an unpublished paper that is not peer reviewed, which purports to find evidence of voter fraud. Lott’s presentation of unvetted and unverified research is especially troubling. Unsurprisingly, his paper alleges evidence of voter fraud — a claim that has been disproven countless times."
In case you wanted another source debunking it:
This is a twitter thread, but the expert has a P.H.D, so he does know what he's talking about:
"Dr. Michael P. McDonald is Associate Professor of Political Science at University of Florida. He received his Ph.D. in Political Science from University of California,"
Created:
Posted in:
I'm not only an atheist, but an antitheist, I do see a lot of geniune misunderstanding about what this is, and I'll use Christopher Hitchens (A rather famous Antitheist) as the definition for myself, I feel this most accurately depicts how I see myself.
"...My view is not just that there is no reason to believe that there is a deity, but that it is a good thing that is not the case."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
think we are all confused, at this point
No, I think you are the one who is confused specifically
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Wrong, as I have pointed out numerous times, you entire - "Atheists have a lack of faith" is not only a strawman but also assumes the existence of god... if you considered points individually you would see that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Can you point out a single country that was great without once being paganistic? No you can't? If you paid attention to my lesser points you would know they all stack upon one another to debunk what you believe to be the greater picture, your way of thinking is logically flawed, "Country was once/is christian, those countries are advance, therefore christianity causes them??" No, that's a non-sequitur, demonstrate specifically that christianity proved this, come on, I've been asking and you've been ignoring my plea for demonstration. The USA always fell flat of its own goals, and if you look at its history at all critically you can find several eras and times where it could be compared to a monarchy or other things, now, I admit that that was usually during war times or when tensions were high, but nevertheless, I don't think America ever achieved what it was originally setting out to do (considering they declared every man independent and didn't free slaves until like 100 years later). America is great for having those goals, and for its checks and balances, its only too bad how many people have abused the loopholes. That point depends on me being impressed with America, I'm not impressed with that point.
Created:
-->
@TheMelioist
I think I gotta do some reading before I could give a real opinion, I think the biggest problem is finance, and as long as their is a good amount of time to develop either ways to mitigate the costs, or develop the technology to do so. I think in the long run... it could be beneficial for further exploration? I'm not sure what it exactly helps..
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
The reason I find that specific reasoning off-kilter, is because you are assuming the reason that they don't use it because it contradicts other evidence - while in reality - the new evidence (the dating methods which find 4.5 billion years) contradicted them - the evidence which is shown to be most reliable, the least deviational, etc. my point here is that there other sources for why, this is speaking generally here, those sorts of data methods aren't valid. Its not because they contradict the 4.5 billion dating method, but because the 4.5 billion dating method contradicts it, as well as general veracity and lack of reliability.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
But... you have seen the wealth of evidence, no? If you could only accept evidence you've directly seen, then homicide investagators would be out a job, they can see the effect of things, or the consequence of one thing being true and track backwards, have you seen the live videos of say... the highest skydiver? Or a drone being fed into the upper atmosphere?
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Mmhm, and that the thing explaining what they found, proof that they found it, and explaining how it works is pretty good evidence.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Do you think my evidence is from the forum? No. I got it from a scientific collection
Created:
-->
@ronjs
But that is referring to different spans of evidence, we are talking about what evidence is reliable. It's 4.5 billion years btw, yes evidence is open to interpretation its the range of that reasonable interpretation is, which is limited.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
You claim that I am missing your arguments while missing my own, I am not saying that at the time there was a better player, I simply correcting your assumption that the church is some kind of saint (ironic I know), its not, never has been. Ironically the less it follows the original code the better it gets, why is that? Why is it that the modern day church is so far away from its roots?
All of your notions are false, the correlations speak of the less religious something is the more happy it is [1], I spoke on facts you are making assumptions, that science made America, wrong - the rejection of the British Monarchy (An actual nation created by religious principles) and monarchy (like theocracy). You assume that the religious made science yet don't respond to my argument that the people who discover things are persecuted [2]. You claim that every state that is advanced and literate is because of the former christian correlation, do you deny that before that was the hellenist? Before that was the paganist? Why are you soley attributing that success to one religious influence, everywhere has had several! Do you forget the invasion of all of Africa between WW1 and 2? They were after that heavily influenced by christians. Do you forget that Christians had colonies everywhere forcefully industrailizing it for their own gain and the native's loss. After that, of course their was christian influence! Where is the evidence that the Christians are the cause of that though! Several princples of holy books seem to undermine science, advance, liberty, even rights of the people. It supports theocracy and the tearing down of democracy, to not trust yourself, do you forget that whenever people became something great they were inspired by individualist?
I disagree that a objective morality could ever exist, and to say otherwise is to be intellectually dishonest, for me. I'm not saying that people believing that objective morality are dishonest, most of them geniunely believe there is, but I do not believe there is, so any of that claiming it to for me would be dishonest from my position. I don't seek to "trashtalk you" I want you to see the clear contradictions in what you're saying, I want you to understand that what you see as some kind of goal, is my hell on earth. Morals don't change "everytime we want them to" we simply learn that some things are terrible, some things are social constructs, etc, etc. I don't disagree that we should have core values or principles for stability, but to make them absolute (as something objective would) would be the enemy of liberty. Your insistence that Secular morality inherited Theistic notions is born of ignorance, at least on the type of secular morality that I speak of, humanism, for example - is most definitely not influenced by christian principles, not to mention the bible isn't even the orginator of what good ideas it does has! That would typically be eastern writers and philosophers. Take the golden rule for example, that was definitely from the bible or any other western religious influence [3]. Funnily enough Thomas Paine, the write of Common Sense was the ones to write the line of inalienable rights and he is typically seen as motivated by enlightenment values and the political nature of democracies versus monarchies [4]. Even more hilariously, the enlightenment is also colloquially known as the "death of god" in religious circles [5]. You are wrong in almost every sense of the word.
Science and philosophy were first coming up by great thinkers like Socrates and co, in that era of time.... in a society of democracy and religious freedom, also.... very hellenistic. So actually I would assert that everything you say to be because of christian or western religion is the result of hellenism. And you don't believe in Zeus do you? Now, if I was rude I apologize, but I don't think your points have any real substance to them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
You ignored almost all of my points (thank you for including the lack of as the definition there), but I don't see an answer to my arguments in this response.
Created: