Atheism and morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-05-2015, 11:38 AM
RE: Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 11:18 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-05-2015 11:13 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Context once again, context always matters. Within the context of algebra, the statement '2+2=5' is wrong (for now we'll ignore higher math that can show things like 1+1 both equals 2 and does not equal 2, or other paradoxes of set theory). However there can be contexts in which '2+2=5' can be correct, such as an error on a multiple-choice test that renders '5' as the answer to be scored as 'correct' on a multiple-choice Scantron test. It all depends on context.

lol, moving the goalpost huh? Let's quote you:

"And if it's dependent on context, it's not objective, it's subjective. "

You just stated the 2+2=5 being wrong is dependent on context.

Does this mean 2+2=5, is not objectively wrong, but subjectively wrong? If you're not about to appeal to factual relativism, you know you're about to contradict yourself, so I can see you shuffling your feet a bit. It's fun to watch though.

Wasn't there already a thread where Girly showed you how actually 2+2=4 isn't certainly right in all forms of mathematically attributions and that mathematics that are set up by arbitrary labels doesn't actually conflate to some real confirmed comment.

So a set case of 2+2=5 being objectively wrong is kinda relying on induction and other potential faulty beliefs. The arithmetic case isn't a case of an objective truth.

This is the contrast coming up here in some posts like from beardeddude. You act like you're asking new questions or respond saying you're looking for different ways people are looking at this but you just seem to glaze over it and never take any of it in. You just ignore it and go in circles repeating the same statements and using the same analogies that have been explained or demonstrated to be seen in other ways than your set view of it. Yet you just go on continuing the same set view.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
27-05-2015, 11:44 AM
RE: Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 11:15 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(27-05-2015 10:57 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Tomasia, before you continue your roundabout of repetition, I think it would be good for you to answer a few basic questions more honestly.

1) Why are you asking questions about subjective morality? Because the answers you have given thus far about being interested in what atheists believe is bullshit. Because you have been given answers, but reject them. Do you believe you are effectively arguing for moral absolutism and effectively against moral relativism?

2) If objective morality exists, what does that mean? What is the significance?

3) If you believe in objective morality based on faith (which is essentially what you said when you admitted that you couldn't demonstrate that morality is objective), then how is it objective morality? Wouldn't something that is objectively true, be objectively demonstrable? If it is objectively true, please demonstrate that.

4) If you can't demonstrate that it is true, and it is something that must be assumed to be true based on faith, how do you reconcile this hypocrisy?

I'm going to repost these, just to make sure you got them

Tomasia, before you continue your roundabout of repetition, I think it would be good for you to answer a few basic questions more honestly.

1) Why are you asking questions about subjective morality? Because the answers you have given thus far about being interested in what atheists believe is bullshit. Because you have been given answers, but reject them. Do you believe you are effectively arguing for moral absolutism and effectively against moral relativism?

2) If objective morality exists, what does that mean? What is the significance?

3) If you believe in objective morality based on faith (which is essentially what you said when you admitted that you couldn't demonstrate that morality is objective), then how is it objective morality? Wouldn't something that is objectively true, be objectively demonstrable? If it is objectively true, please demonstrate that.

4) If you can't demonstrate that it is true, and it is something that must be assumed to be true based on faith, how do you reconcile this hypocrisy?

And on that note, I am going to repeat my questions, again.

Tomasia, before you continue your roundabout of repetition, I think it would be good for you to answer a few basic questions more honestly.

1) Why are you asking questions about subjective morality? Because the answers you have given thus far about being interested in what atheists believe is bullshit. Because you have been given answers, but reject them. Do you believe you are effectively arguing for moral absolutism and effectively against moral relativism?

2) If objective morality exists, what does that mean? What is the significance?

3) If you believe in objective morality based on faith (which is essentially what you said when you admitted that you couldn't demonstrate that morality is objective), then how is it objective morality? Wouldn't something that is objectively true, be objectively demonstrable? If it is objectively true, please demonstrate that.

4) If you can't demonstrate that it is true, and it is something that must be assumed to be true based on faith, how do you reconcile this hypocrisy?

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
27-05-2015, 11:45 AM
RE: Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 11:38 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Wasn't there already a thread where Girly showed you how actually 2+2=4 isn't certainly right in all forms of mathematically attributions and that mathematics that are set up by arbitrary labels doesn't actually conflate to some real confirmed comment.

Yes, Girly did make the argument, but he confessed to being a factual relativist.

If that's what you and Evolutionkills subscribe to as well. By all means go ahead. I'll await your confessions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2015, 11:55 AM
RE: Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 11:45 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Yes, Girly did make the argument, but he confessed to being a factual relativist.

If that's what you and Evolutionkills subscribe to as well. By all means go ahead. I'll await your confessions.

You see right here - where you enjoy putting folks into "buckets" based on some things they say or views they hold - I find this pretty cheesy. If they are not in your camp then they are just this, or that, and should confess to being misguided or wrong.

So why are you looking for validation here for your problem with "not being able to not believe"? That is for you to sort out, and not for us to knock the required sense into your head.

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Timber1025's post
27-05-2015, 11:56 AM
RE: Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 11:45 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-05-2015 11:38 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Wasn't there already a thread where Girly showed you how actually 2+2=4 isn't certainly right in all forms of mathematically attributions and that mathematics that are set up by arbitrary labels doesn't actually conflate to some real confirmed comment.

Yes, Girly did make the argument, but he confessed to being a factual relativist.

If that's what you and Evolutionkills subscribe to as well. By all means go ahead. I'll await your confessions.

To a degree or an extent, probably, not firmly though. Not to a point where I'd say something of chi-chakra is true to eastern thought as typical nervous/bloodstream following medicine of the west.

I wouldn't however define arbitrarily given value systems with something that can be stated as absolutely right at all.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2015, 12:00 PM
RE: Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 11:38 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  So a set case of 2+2=5 being objectively wrong is kinda relying on induction and other potential faulty beliefs. The arithmetic case isn't a case of an objective truth.

If I have two apples, and someone gives me two more apples. Is it objectively true that I now have four apples?

If someone claimed, that no, if you have two apples and received two more apples, that would mean you have five apples, be objectively wrong?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2015, 12:08 PM
RE: Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 12:00 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-05-2015 11:38 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  So a set case of 2+2=5 being objectively wrong is kinda relying on induction and other potential faulty beliefs. The arithmetic case isn't a case of an objective truth.

If I have two apples, and someone gives me two more apples. Is it objectively true that I now have four apples?

If someone claimed, that no, if you have two apples and received two more apples, that would mean you have five apples, be objectively wrong?

Please explain what the actual fuck this has to do with morality. Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
27-05-2015, 12:09 PM
Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 12:00 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-05-2015 11:38 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  So a set case of 2+2=5 being objectively wrong is kinda relying on induction and other potential faulty beliefs. The arithmetic case isn't a case of an objective truth.

If I have two apples, and someone gives me two more apples. Is it objectively true that I now have four apples?

If someone claimed, that no, if you have two apples and received two more apples, that would mean you have five apples, be objectively wrong?

Morals aren't math.

Please answer my questions instead of throwing out more of the same red herrings and shitty analogies.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2015, 12:09 PM
RE: Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 12:00 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-05-2015 11:38 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  So a set case of 2+2=5 being objectively wrong is kinda relying on induction and other potential faulty beliefs. The arithmetic case isn't a case of an objective truth.

If I have two apples, and someone gives me two more apples. Is it objectively true that I now have four apples?

If someone claimed, that no, if you have two apples and received two more apples, that would mean you have five apples, be objectively wrong?

It's not objectively wrong because there is immense amount of missing information. Most people would make the assumption it's wrong, on a grade schooler 1st grader test I'd make the assumption, but in definitive reality, I don't know for sure.

What constitutes having an apple, physical object in what form of the apple? Does having eaten an apple constitute having an apple? What if you ate one of the apples as someone was giving you 2 more? Does that mean you have 3 apples? What if you ate one just before does that mean you have 5 apples if it does count? Does the size of the apples apply for how many apples do you have? Is it the object of your touch that matters or the FORM of the apple? Is the form of the apple a 3 oz apple seeded like object? if you have extra ounces of apple do you have more apples? It's an unconfirmed quandary to me.

There is so much perspective you lack to make a conclusion of objective certainty. You don't know if you actually have it or not. And this isn't just mindgames, I actually speak or think of this manner frequently. A friend at work often jokes if only I was a bit less sarcastic at times... but I tell him I'm not being sarcastic here, I'm just taking the information he is giving me without viewing it only in the normal perception we culturally normally view the issue in.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-05-2015, 12:13 PM
RE: Atheism and morality
(27-05-2015 11:38 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  This is the contrast coming up here in some posts like from beardeddude. You act like you're asking new questions or respond saying you're looking for different ways people are looking at this but you just seem to glaze over it and never take any of it in. You just ignore it and go in circles repeating the same statements and using the same analogies that have been explained or demonstrated to be seen in other ways than your set view of it. Yet you just go on continuing the same set view.

This whole repeating circle thing has always been interesting to me. I see people glazing over what I said, never taking any of it. And you see me as glazing things over, never taking it in. I see people ignoring it, and going in circles, repeating the same statements and using the same analogies that I've explained and gone over the problems with, while you see me doing this.

In some way this circle appears to both of us as the same, but from different ends.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: