We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-04-2016, 04:56 PM
RE: We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
(28-04-2016 02:17 PM)Aliza Wrote:  
Tomasia Wrote:And no, you think the claim the Jews were innocent is subjective, and not a fact. Either that or you're just a shitty fucking communicator, knowing you that's quite possible.

Way to be a prick "Christian".

(28-04-2016 02:17 PM)Aliza Wrote:  Eh, fuck off, Tomasia.

I like Tomatillo more than most non-atheists here. He is genuinely interested and inquisitive. Biggest flaw is that he argues technical shit which he has a flawed understanding of. But to his credit he will go off and correct those deficiencies when they are pointed out him.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
28-04-2016, 05:04 PM
RE: We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
(28-04-2016 04:51 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(28-04-2016 04:26 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  You can't knowingly scapegoat, that would be a contradiction. You unknowingly do so.


As a matter of fact you can.

In the traditional and modern sense, the scapegoat can be a conscious choice.

I don't see how a scapegoat could be anything except a conscious choice. If you unknowingly place blame on the wrong target it isn't a scapegoat, it's just an error. The whole concept of scapegoating is intentionally blaming an innocent victim.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like unfogged's post
28-04-2016, 08:22 PM
RE: We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
(28-04-2016 03:23 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Or in other words how do I objectively show delusional people that they're delusional?

I literally can't even...

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes evenheathen's post
28-04-2016, 08:49 PM (This post was last modified: 29-04-2016 03:46 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
Hey Tomasia! Do you know what I appreciate after having one of my posts chopped up and half ignored? Having you do that again, assuming I wouldn't notice or care. Dodgy


(28-04-2016 03:23 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(28-04-2016 02:23 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  The point wasn't the 'equality' bit, it was the 'justification' bit.
I don't know what your asking me to justify, or why. Am I suppose to be justifying that equality matters, to those like yourself who likely agree with me that equality matters?

Yeah. How do you use your objective morality? How did you conclude that equality was superior to discrimination? If you don't use empathy, cultural norms, or any other subjective means at determining your ethics, just how do you do it?

I ask, because I don't think you've ever thought about this long or hard enough to actually justify your claim to 'objective' morality. So unless you can provided a basis and justification for your objective morality, then your standards look like just another set of subjective standards. The point being that while the rest of us are honest about it, you continue to hide behind 'objectivity' like it gives you the high ground.

Personally, I think you're a liar.


(28-04-2016 03:23 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:Yeah, but by what objective standards do you do such? And how do you determine that?
What objective standard would I show a person dehumanizing and scapegoating that they're dehumanizing and scapegoating? Or in other words how do I objectively show delusional people that they're delusional?

The same way I show Sandy Hook conspiracy folks that Sandy Hook wasn't a conspiracy, duh. I mean yea it's that fucking easy.


So easy, and yet you continuously refuse to fucking do it? You sound like you're full of shit.


(28-04-2016 03:23 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:We want to know what your mechanism is, and you've done nothing but dodge the point. Claiming objective morality, then refusing to state how it works or why, is very dishonest on your part.
Oh like how one would explain how a car works, how the gears turn and shit? Your question to me are the equivalent of asking how many angels can dance on a needlehead. Better directed at your next humanist meeting, to supporters of Sam Harris.


Once again, if you cannot show it then your supposed objectivity is both immeasurable and useless.


How about this. If you can explain how your objective morality works, I'll explain to you the fundamentals of the internal combustion engine. Deal?


(28-04-2016 03:23 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  To me objective morality is a self-evident, no moral problem exists that requires me to justify that morality is objective, because every moral dispute, involves some implicit knowledge of this, even for folks who as a result of their atheism, have to deny that morality is objective.


Claiming it is 'self evident' doesn't make it so. This is you completely and utterly copping out. You cannot show it, and so you feign offense and that it's beneath you. That won't fly here, and you know that.

If you could show it, and it was as trivially easy to do so as you imply, why the continuous backpedaling? Either you're supremely lazy, or supremely dishonest. I'm betting on the later.


(28-04-2016 03:23 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Perhaps this is because we live in a world where most people grew up in a religious society of some sort, that has always held morality as an objective thing, a part of a teleological view of life, regardless of moral disagreements.


You do know that majority approval doesn't make it true, right?

You're not that stupid, right?


(28-04-2016 03:23 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  And here's the kicker. For someone such as myself and others, which includes the bulk of humanity, who believes that morality is objective, our moral views don't become subjective if objective morality doesn't exist, they become false.


Nope. If willfully killing another human is objectively wrong, then those who agree are in line with being moral and those who disagree are in line with being immoral. If however such objectivity doesn't exist, and people have to justify the morality or immorality of taking a life on a case by case basis, that is subjective morality; because the morality of the action is subject to it's particular context. This is why we have different words for murder (killing with malicious intent), manslaughter (accidental killing through negligence) and self defense (justified protection of the self from harm). How the person died matters.

You literally have no idea what we're talking about, do you?


(28-04-2016 03:23 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  The same way the view that the earth is flat, doesn't become subjective when shown to be false.


Because that's objectively measurable. The shape of the Earth doesn't depend on human justification.

You've yet to show how your objective morality is measurable or justifiable.


(28-04-2016 03:23 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Human moral beliefs, are not subjective beliefs, other than perhaps for a handful of
individual who hold to moral subjectivism.


Great, so they're objective then. Show it.

No credit if you don't show your work. Drinking Beverage


(28-04-2016 03:23 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  These views are predominately built on the belief that morality is objective. If objective morality doesn't exists, at best we might call this an Illusion, but we can't call it subjective. Which should be a fairly simple point to acknowledge, but I doubt it will be.

It would be simple, if you actually understood what we were talking about. But it's becoming clearer and clearer that the rest of us are entirely talking over your head. Facepalm

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
28-04-2016, 08:49 PM
RE: We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
(28-04-2016 04:26 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(28-04-2016 03:52 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I asked the question because you clearly don't understand the difference between someone knowingly creating and using a scapegoat, and other people not believing it's a scapegoat and believing that (in this case) the Jews were objectively the cause of their problems.

A GREAT example of this being a SUBJECTIVE case where one groups sees the answer as absolutely yes, and another as absolutely no.

You. Are. Fucking. Stupid.


Omigosh.

You can't knowingly scapegoat, that would be a contradiction. You unknowingly do so.
Or in other words it's a delusion, and perhaps the most universal of all delusions, second only to religion.

Tell me if this makes sense to you, "delusional people believe the holocaust was a hoax, non-delusional folks know that it was not. That's a great example of this being subjective."

You obviously do not understand the meaning of 'scapegoating'. It is typically intentional.
The origin of it is the intentional laying of guilt on a goat.

The number of things you think you know that are completely wrong is legion.

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
[+] 6 users Like Chas's post
28-04-2016, 09:14 PM
RE: We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
(28-04-2016 04:26 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(28-04-2016 03:52 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I asked the question because you clearly don't understand the difference between someone knowingly creating and using a scapegoat, and other people not believing it's a scapegoat and believing that (in this case) the Jews were objectively the cause of their problems.

A GREAT example of this being a SUBJECTIVE case where one groups sees the answer as absolutely yes, and another as absolutely no.

You. Are. Fucking. Stupid.


Omigosh.

You can't knowingly scapegoat, that would be a contradiction. You unknowingly do so.
Or in other words it's a delusion, and perhaps the most universal of all delusions, second only to religion.

Tell me if this makes sense to you, "delusional people believe the holocaust was a hoax, non-delusional folks know that it was not. That's a great example of this being subjective."

You demonstrate yet again, that you don't know what it means for something to be subjective.

Non-delusional people don't invent objective scenarios around subjective examples based on their own biases.

Just because YOU identify an action as immoral, does NOT mean other people living today or in the past or in the future do.

Nazis believed Jews to be the source of their problems. Full stop. End. Period. If you were a Nazi, that's what you'd believe as objectively true. Full stop. End. Period. Outside of that context, the Jews were not typically viewed in such a way (the Nazis aren't the only racist and anti-Semitic pricks around who held that same opinion of Jewish conspiracy). Full stop. End. Period.

One group views an action/opinion as moral/correct/just. Another, does not.

Ever wonder why it's so hard for organizations like the UN to get worldwide collaboration on what seem like no-brainer type questions? It's because morals and ethics, are cultural! You don't and won't see that. You'll continue to assume that I'm a Nazi or Nazi-sympathizer or some other such bullshit. Drinking Beverage why? Because thinking and engaging with what someone actually says, is too hard.


(And once again, you try to emulate me in your responses. I'm flattered that you value my intellectual faculties that much, really I am. But I would be much more appreciative if you weren't so fucking awful at it Thumbsup you're not me, no matter how hard you try)

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
[+] 3 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
28-04-2016, 10:56 PM
RE: We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
Well this turned to shit.
Anyone wanna go hang out in the favorite pictures for a laugh at religion thread with me?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like earmuffs's post
28-04-2016, 11:13 PM
RE: We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
(28-04-2016 10:56 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Well this turned to shit.
Anyone wanna go hang out in the favorite pictures for a laugh at religion thread with me?

Did Tommy finally post a pic?

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-04-2016, 11:28 PM
RE: We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
(28-04-2016 10:56 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  Well this turned to shit.
Anyone wanna go hang out in the favorite pictures for a laugh at religion thread with me?

[Image: hqdefault.jpg]

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
29-04-2016, 04:00 AM
RE: We want to hear from you at God-Talk.com
Also, here's a primer on the difference between objective and subjective for our friend Tomasia.


You have central air, and the temperature of the room is set to 72°F. You can place a number of different thermometers around the room, and they're all reading 72°F give or take a fraction of a degree depending on air movement. For the sake of the argument, the room is 72°F. So the objective temperature is 72°F, +/- a fraction of a degree. This is measurable, demonstrable, and testable. That is what we mean by objective.


Now, how does the room feel? Is 72°F cool, cold, warm, or hot? That depends. To someone from the Yukon, Siberia, or coming back from a year long research trip to Antarctica, 72°F could be very warm to them. On the other hand, to someone who lives in sub-Saharan Africa or the deserts of the middle east? 72°F to them could be very cool, if not downright chilly. Their feeling and description of that same objective temperature is colored by their own background and experiences. What the room feels like to them is subjective, as are their description of it. Describing the room as either cool or warm would not be an objective valuation, but rather a subjective one. It's why you'll see people bundled up in sweats in Florida when it his 60°F, but people in Massachusetts will be out in tank-tops and shorts. This is what we mean by subjective.


Do you finally get it now? I doubt it, but nobody can say I didn't try. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like EvolutionKills's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: