Thoughts on Morality Video?
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Sorry LogicForTW I didn't forget about you. Hard to keep up with where updated comments are on this thread. PS I'm not yelling when I put things in all caps. I haven't found a way to bold or underline or italicise so caps is all I got for emphasis. Just FYI cause someone else mentioned it. Exclamation points for me is yelling lol.
The question Are thoughts objective?
My answer: Thoughts can objectively exist but they cannot be objectively moral.
1. Thoughts can objectively exist.
In order for something to objectively exist it must exist separate from the influence from an outside observer even if that object is material or immaterial.
When I THE OBSERVER stop thinking about the tree outside my house OBJECT it is still there
Therefore the tree objectively exists
When I stop thinking about the Fireworks that happened at Disneylyand they still happened in history
there for the fireworks at disneyland last night objectively exist in history.
Also when you THE OBSERVER stop thinking about the thought I had OBJECT or even if you do not know that I had it. It still occurred.
Therefore the immaterial thought objectively exists in history and my current immaterial thoughts objectively exist now.
Therefore thoughts can objectively exist.
2. Thoughts from a human cannot be objectively moral. I will not do standard argument style here rather I will past my comments to CyberLN about his question he asked earlier in this thread sorry if its a bit more than you asked for:
Its not that one is a being that makes it subjective but the nature of that being that makes it subjective. Human beings are limited, finite, imperfect, etc. It is impossible for us to be the essence of anything teleologically. However, God is a completely different order of being. Scripture says that God alone is Good. he is not simply a good being but rather he is goodness itself. He is objectively what good is. Essentially good is a being God. This being the case then we have an objective standard to compare things to. Also the God of the Bible is unchanging and transcendent above time. Man cannot claim to be such therefore man is incapable of being or making principles that are objectively good. So again it is not that he is simply another being but that he is another order of being which is transcendent that makes it objective.
Secondly, just has citizens must obey the law of its ruler's or face penalties, just as a student must follow the sylabus of an instructor in the instructors class or face consequences, so to must we obey the regulations set forth by a God who created and owns everything. That would be the rational. Of course God has to be true in order for that rational to apply (which I believe he does) but that is the rational in a God (of the Bible) existing universe.
You changed the agreed upon definition of: "objective" that you posted to fit your argument.
Here is what you posted:
Dictionary.com states: of or relating to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.
Webster's dictionary: a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
Where does thought fit into either of these definitions?
The dictionary.com definition literally says "existing independent of thought." The absence of thought is literally used in the definition of objective. How can this not be more clear? How can a thought exist independent of a thought?
It is like defining the number one, ("one is not two") then in the very next breath saying one is two. If you can change the definitions of words as you use them you are speaking gibberish.
The webster definition is a little harder.
But how can your thoughts be completely free of personal feelings, prejudice and interpretation. Can you have a thought w/o interpretation?
The entire god must exist because.. morales, is based on tricking people with a word game. Taking advantage of the fact things like objective, thoughts, morales etc are hard to define and for most people not well understood.
It is a bit like me saying "Your god exists, agree?" ....theisist response: "well yes."
Then me going "HAH! I changed the definition of god in that sentence God really means "no god" ...."Ooooh Gotcha!"
Obviously the above is greatly simplified and sounds like a foolish childish act, but that's what changing definitions of words to suit your needs does. It destroys good conversation.
Of course beyond this definition/word game, as others have stated: morales exist because of god, god exists because of morales is a circular argument. That's like saying: "you owe me a million dollars, because a million dollars is owed to me from you."
Hey Logic for TW,
Thanks for this, I'm really having to sharpen my arguments.
It is the different between Object and Outside Observer. Let me relabel the definition with these terms so you can see where I'm comming from. You can dissagree with my interpretation if you'd like. But at least it will make sense where I'm coming from.
Dictionary.com states: of or relating to something that can be known (OBJECT), or to something that is an object (OBJECT) or a part of an object (OBJECT); existing independent of thought (OF AN OBSERVER) or (ANY ACTION OF) an observer as part of reality.
Webster's dictionary: a : expressing or dealing with facts (OBJECT) or conditions (OBJECT) as perceived without distortion by personal feelings (OF AN OBSERVER), prejudices (OF AN OBSERVER), or interpretations (OF AN OBSERVER).
Holding to this interpretation I would say that a thought can be a part of a reality as an object. If this is the case then a thought can as an object exist and exist indepent of an observer be it you or even the person who made the thought. For if I thought, "the tree outside my house is an oak tree" it is now an object and can be known. I can twist it and destroy it and lie to you and say that I thought nothing just as I can take the oak tree outside my house and twist and burn and destroy it and say that it did not exist but without my actions as an observer it will objectively exist and even after its possible destruction it objectively exists in history.
Secondly your comment isn't what I'd agree to: "morales exist because of god, god exists because of morales is a circular argument. That's like saying: "you owe me a million dollars, because a million dollars is owed to me from you."
I believe rather that morality is broken down as follows:
1. Morality
---a Objective morality (cannot exist without God)
---b. Subjective morality (can exist without God)
Also I would state not that God cannot exist without morality, rather that objective morals virtues like good/righteousness/justice in their absolute form is God. God is goodness itself, God is righteousness itself. So in some respects Its not that God cannot exist without morality but rather in its objective sub category God himself is Morality.
Okay, we fundamentally disagree on the definition of "objective." That is fine.
Let me see if I can go about this a different way, using your definition of objective.
So if all thoughts are objective, what is not objective at this point? What is subjective? Since thoughts can include anything we can possibly dream up? How do you define subjective if objective includes all thought?
Is objective just another word for everything? Is subjective just another word for nothing?
I agree with you, your god can exist without morality. (Fixed your triple negative sentence to be just a single negative.)
Thanks for fixing my sentence.
So if all thoughts are objective, what is not objective at this point? What is subjective?
Lets say that I asked you what is the best color in the world:
You think: Red is the best color in the world.
As an object your thought objectively exists. You thought that sentence and therefore it objectively exists as an object.
As a judgement your objectively existing thought is a subjective opinion because it is not based on fact but subjective opinion.
Thats the difference.
man/societies can make a law that exist objectively as an object in history. But those laws as judgements on what is good/bad are subjective.
You just don't get it. Objective morality doesn't exist. That is a fact. Why is it a fact? Because to have objective morality you have to have ONE source that dictates morality. Everyone's conscience is different. Don't try and tell me that we all have a common conscience. And that is a whole other can of worms that I just don't want to open up.
You are delusional if you think that there is one bible. The "66" books. That is utter bullshit. I more than proved that there are literally thousands. You can't justify and say that there is only one bible. That is a flat out lie. I can provide just two that are different if that makes it simpler for you.
1) The King James Bible in use and universally accepted.
2) the Codex Sinaiticus.
The King James bible tells a story of resurrection in the Gospel of Mark.
The Codex Sinaiticus version has NO resurrection in the Gospel of Mark.
You can't just make up little scenarios that aren't related and call them facts. The colorblind man isn't a good representation of the issue and somewhat childish.
This statement and the following statements are just stupid. "IF THERE ARE NO OBJECTIVE MORALS THEN THERE IS NO REAL MORAL REASON TO OBEY OR DISOBEY ANYONE OR ANYTHING OTHER. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A GOOD PERSON OR BAD PERSON; NO SUCH THING AS GOOD OR EVIL"
Morals are derived from and enforce by the relative society that forms them. So your yelling argument isn't valid. And WHAT THE FUCK DOES HITLER HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING? I told you before that at the time most of Germany thought Hitler moral but the world society thought him not. Historically he is judged immoral because the world's collective view of morality found him immoral. We have already covered this.
You also said "If Christianity and God were true and real then" If, if, FUCK IF! You prove a god then you can talk! If grasshoppers were armed with .45's then birds wouldn't fuck with them. Fuck "IF"!
I am tired of talking to you. You don't absorb shit. You keep justifying your god.
You said that objective morality can't exist without a god....FALSE It doesn't need a god, only a singular authority to dictate morality and enforce it.
"Imagine you are blindfolded..." Another unrelated scenario. Childish and unrelated. there are flaws in the scenario in the first place but that is just moving the goal post so to speak, A common theist tactic.
let's go back to the beginning.
Your video assumed that if god doesn't exist then there is no objective morality.
YOU assumed that if there is no objective morality then there is no such thing as morality.
Both are ASSUMPTIONS and both are FALSE!
Mykob4,
Thank you for your post. I think however you should reread my responses to your comments. I provide adequate analogies that are backed up by historical evidence - that is how they are directly related which I stated. It is a way of showing the history of what happen and the logic of how it works all in summary. I'm not sure if you carefully read my post. Perhaps you did. I can link that evidence if you like. My prior responses render your comments on the different translations and "missing stories" of scripture mute. You would have to disprove the logic of my analogies which you have yet to do. Also to call them childish without providing adequate proof that they are is also a mute point. You stating that I cannot use abstract reasoning including analogies is also a mute point. So long as we are debating it is right and good to utilize all forms of rationalization and abstract reasoning so long as they connect and are appropriate which I have supported. Thats like saying in a boxing match "you're winning no fair you can't use both arms now." If you cannot defend against the analogy then saying that I can't use them (though you have no authority to limit me) is a mute point.
Also I think you stating that certain things are facts that many Atheists whom I have spoken to say are not provable is not being intellectually honest. Your stance should be one of neutrality even if there is a bias. I feel that it would be more logical to state that there is not enough evidence in your opinion to state objective morals as a fact or not a fact and therefore we will go with best educated guess subjective morality. But of course in a morally objectionless world you do not have to listen to me.
(on a side note if your only evidence is to say that mark don't universally state the resurrection and therefore it didn't happen then you have to also read the scripture's more carefully. All four gospels including Mark state that Jesus was raised from the dead: see Matthew 28:1-20; Mark 16:6-8 as well as the Mark 16:9-20 that you're disputing about; Luke24:1-50; and John chapter 20 and 21. This list doesn't include the other books of the NT that affirm the Resurrection of Christ. Jesus was raised from the dead according to the eyewitness testimony of the apostles, and other evidence which I'm sure is worthy of another thread and your book in question states it even without the section in dispute. I know this is not the core of your argument but it needs to be said since its the implication of your argument.)
After reading your comments however, I realized that you landed where I feel all atheist should land. That with your perspective there are no objective morals. Since you've stated that then you have to deal with the consequences of that world and its arbitrary regulations and rules. You have stated that my statement of the consequences are stupid; however, again you do not prove how it is stupid with logical argumentation, which again makes a mute point. Because of this trend I would appreciate it if you supported your conclusions with premises otherwise you're just throwing around weightless accusation.
Here is a question for you to answer now that we are kind of on the same page.
If your country at large decided to take your house and all your possessions because everyone just "decided" randomly without any reasoning that it was good to do. What could you apeal to to stop them? If you appealed to the law and current subjective majority rules what if they in response collectively changed them that day... again what could you appeal to to stop them. You could say "that's not right, that's stealing, but who says that's wrong? You? They say its right so its right according to your reasoning to them and they therefore can take your house. What can you appeal to to stop them? If society changed it's rules overnight to take your possessions what could you appeal to, to stop them? You can call that society bad but who cares you are just a man and your morality against a majority means nothing. If they decided to ship you off to a concentration camp who are you to say otherwise? You can say so but you're not the majority so who cares? This is how Hitler connects. Hitler is a standard case of measuring a world of morality. You have no more right within the rules of your world to say that he is a bad person than you do to say that red is the best color in the world (if you believed that) and then to kill people according to that belief. Its arbitrary for you or any group of entities to act upon opinion (which is what subjective morality becomes). John Doe could make a law that says everyone who doesn't eat ice cream every day will die and there's no higher standard to say that he'd be wrong to do so. Nothing higher just more collective. Mob mentality. The majority can make whatever rules they want so long is there a majority. Which is the same as survival of the fittest which makes sense because in an Atheist world evolution is most likely god and morality will most likely be set by that principle.
So lets go back to the beginning as you say.
The video makes a claim that objectivity in its true definition cannot be applied to morality without God. This is true; if not please prove otherwise.
I am not of the opinion that without objective morality that morality doesn't exist but rather that it is relegated to subjective morality which is the same thing as opinion which is the same thing as saying red is the best color in the world, therefore it is.
In this thread I am ok if you guys do not believe in God. However, the consequence is then to say that morals exist but they can only be subjective and never objectively moral and therefore truly objectively binding. This is my closing statement to you MyKob4 since we are mostly on the same page in where I've wanted you to land. I'll now engage with others and then return to you when I have time! =] (I haven't forgotten about you. I just want to give others time as well; also, I think you have some re-reading to do of my prior comments before I re-engage because I have made many arguments that you have not disprove so we can't really move on unless you engage them. You of course would say the same about me proving God first but in my prior arguments as well I've shown how proving God is not required for this particular thread because of the limitation of the argument initially provided. Yes eventually we should and will debate about that. But now is not the time. Please disprove logically what I have said earlier and I will return to engage with your rebuttals if you so choose to do so.)
I already gave you an example of an objective moral law that does not require god.
-----------------
All the Spider-man comics say Spider-man lives in New York City; I guess that must be true also.
-----------------
On a lighter note; apparently there is some disease going around causing people to go mute!
I already gave you an example of an objective moral law that does not require god.
- In your example does it objectively exist or is it objectively moral? I've shown how the two are different. The only way to say that moral laws without God exist is to re-define objectivity to be subjectivity, which I have already shown cannot be done without being intellectually dishonest.
Spiderman example
Alright, but does the author claim this to be truth? Also if he did, though he doesn't does history support his claim? Your example is irrelevant on those two basis. A better example would be something from Islam or another religion which made its claims and held to them as truth.
Lighter note... lol.. I guess there is a disease going around because you making that joke as a way of trying to gloss over the truth of my statements rather than dealing with them and disproving them, which you have not done, is a cheap shot and is also a mute point hahahahaha. At least I know you have a sense of humor. Good times.. wait is it good in your world since there is no morally objective standard? oh man the jokes just keep coming. But for real thanks for your comments =] and lightness.
Bullshit Whatistruth! You didn't provide shit. You offered childish little-unrelated scenarios that didn't prove shit!
Please use the following link and LEARN something!
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/helping-those-need-it-...
Here we are again.
To have objective morality you need an overall authority.
That authority does not and has never been a god.
Each society dictates what is accepted as morality.
Prove that I my examples and analogies were meaningless.
Prove that my scenarios were childish
Prove that my scenarios were unrelated
I will look at your links they look interesting.
Lastly we agree that without God there are no objective morals. The rest is your consequential viewpoint. I understand this. This is what I want to highlight however. Because now there is nothing good or bad about the rules each society makes.. its all meaningless and subjective. Its all opinion like saying red is the best color.
No, we don't agree that without a god there is no objective morality. To have objective morality there must be an overall authority and that doesn't have to be your god or any god. I don't know how many times that has to be explained to you.
I am not going to go into how and why are your little scenarios are irrelevant. If you looked at the material I provided FOR YOU, you should immediately know why.
Funny how you want me to prove something but absolutely won't prove your god. That is utterly dishonest.
During this whole thread, you have had us to do YOUR work for you. That is also dishonest. Like "disproving your god." the onus is on you. I am not going to disprove things, that makes no sense. I don't believe there is a billion mile invisible cow on the other side of the sun but I don't believe it is there either.
To have objective morality there must be an overall authority and that doesn't have to be your god or any god."
But an overall authority can include God and therefore we agree even if only partially. God comprises a whole list of entities/principles that can be an overall authority. Analogy, its like me saying you need red for there to be color; you saying no you can use any color, my response would be that though includes red. We only disagree on the exclusivity of red which in this case is God.
I am not going to go into how and why are your little scenarios are irrelevant. If you looked at the material I provided FOR YOU, you should immediately know why.
You wont perhaps because you cant? You have had ample time to do so. And I have disproved your arguments with logic and prove because there are flaws which I took the time to point out. Instead you keep avoiding the issue by leveling more unsupported conclusions and insults and have also tried to derail the topic of the thread to a side argument that while relevant is not necessary to discuss the topic of this thread.
"Funny how you want me to prove something but absolutely won't prove your god. That is utterly dishonest."
I've already stated why proving God's existence is unnecessary for this threads topic; however proving/disproving the arguments that are the topic of this thread and pertinent to its conclusion are necessary, that's why you have to prove it. Going into a "Does God exist debate derails and distracts from the main point of the thread which you seem bent on doing.
Also, your just arguing with me but I'm debating with ALL of you guys so perhaps this is why I can't do all of the work every time. If it were just me and you I would.
Since you have had ample time to discus the essential topics of this thread, I'm not sure that there will be further fruitful discussion between you and I unless you do. I think we've come to a wall where you want me to prove God and not engage in the lengthy rebuttals I gave you regarding the essential arguments of this thread. And I'm asking you to focus this discussion on the arguments essential to prove the topic of this thread and its arguments.
also you have already landed at the point of this video. Now it would be good to discuss the consequences of a godless and morally objection-less world. There are some good rebuttals to this and I have thought of some. If no one posts any eventually I might post them.
We can debate your question of God's existence on another thread. You and I both know it is a massive one. Therefore I am pointing out that it's place is not here.
I will look at your sources thoroughly (I briefly already have) in respect of your claims and time in finding them and if I find that you are correct I shall correct my statements. =]
No, we don't agree You have to prove a god for there to be a possibility that a god is an overall authority. Since that is how you started that long statement I didn't read any further. I am tired of the long-winded bullshit. I have stated what this issue has been reduced to so I am not interested in a bunch of verbiage. It's pointless.
By the way if my joke was insensitive to anyone my apologies =]
I'm still wondering if you even got my joke; and you did it again...
Funny how these stipulations are missing from your argument and you only added them after the fact to attempt to rule out a counter-example. If that is how you do things; you will always be able to rule out any counter example to anything.
Funnier still, your example can't pass those hurdles either. For example: there is no known contemporary source for the life/death/resurrection of character Jesus.
These "stipulations" are actually just logical rules that existed before I stated them and have now only become relevant given your argument. There are 100's of thousands of arguments and logical rules that both of us haven't stated because until we run into them they are not needed. Just because you have not cited or stated every single argument and proof that can be made does not mean that the a logical refutation that you bring up is invalid. The proof is in the logic no matter when it is brought up. Your argument rests upon this one premise:
If I did not bring it up before then it is not logical.
I did not bring up my "stipulations" before (though what I brought up was logical argumentation)
Therefore my argument is funny with the nuance of your later statements just a way of ruling out counter arguments.
You are right. If someone brings up a counter point that is not logical then I will bring up an objectively logical principle to refute it whether or not I have stated it before. I believe that this is typical of argumentation. Because of all of this I am failing to see how a "you must bring everything up before or its not fair" argument is a valid one.
to your second point... are you saying that in order to establish a fact you need a CONTEMPORARY source? Does that mean that if for 50 years no text book/article is written on The American revolution then it didn't happen because we cannot find a contemporary source? Are you saying that because no one from this era saw the American revolution that it didn't happen because there isn't a contemporary eye witness testimony?
How is it that historians like Josephus and the eye witness testimony of the Bible and other artifacts are not evidence? In a court of law (since someone brought it up earlier) ALL evidence would be considered (historical and contemporary). There are still books being written researching the proved existence of Jesus Christ CONTEMPORARY and the scriptures and other documents also claim by way of eye witness testimony that he existed HISTORICAL. ALL of this should be considered. Secondly, the disciples did write and believed that what they wrote is true and confirmed their beliefs with the blood of martyrdom. Therefore, my example does pass both hurdles.
There are way to many proofs that he was a man that existed in history. Your argument to say otherwise is a really old and disproved one. http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/je... Sorry I haven't checked all of this source to make sure that it is well backed. I'm responding to too many others to do so properly. Also, the existence of Jesus is another discussion for another thread which we should do. Here I am simply attempting to show that according to Atheists there are no objective morals. From that we have to look at what the implications of that are.
Lastly, you would say the same thing to me if I were taking about science and used a similar example from fiction:
for example:
Science says that gravity is real
the matrix has Neo flying and defying gravity therefore both claims are absurd.
you would or at least should turn around and say: 1) the matrix was intended to be fictional science is not and 2) what does science back. This is exactly what I did and though you I could say that you didn't bring this up before, that doesn't mean that what you said was not true.
These "stipulations" are actually just logical rules that existed before I stated them and have now only become relevant given your argument. There are 100's of thousands of arguments and logical rules that both of us haven't stated because until we run into them they are not needed. Just because you have not cited or stated every single argument and proof that can be made does not mean that the a logical refutation that you bring up is invalid. The proof is in the logic no matter when it is brought up. Your argument rests upon this one premise:
If I did not bring it up before then it is not logical.
I did not bring up my "stipulations" before (though what I brought up was logical argumentation)
Therefore my argument is funny with the nuance of your later statements just a way of ruling out counter arguments.
You are right. If someone brings up a counter point that is not logical then I will bring up an objectively logical principle to refute it whether or not I have stated it before. I believe that this is typical of argumentation. Because of all of this I am failing to see how a "you must bring everything up before or its not fair" argument is a valid one.
to your second point... are you saying that in order to establish a fact you need a CONTEMPORARY source? Does that mean that if for 50 years no text book/article is written on The American revolution then it didn't happen because we cannot find a contemporary source? Are you saying that because no one from this era saw the American revolution that it didn't happen because there isn't a contemporary eye witness testimony?
How is it that historians like Josephus and the eye witness testimony of the Bible and other artifacts are not evidence? In a court of law (since someone brought it up earlier) ALL evidence would be considered (historical and contemporary). There are still books being written researching the proved existence of Jesus Christ CONTEMPORARY and the scriptures and other documents also claim by way of eye witness testimony that he existed HISTORICAL. ALL of this should be considered. Secondly, the disciples did write and believed that what they wrote is true and confirmed their beliefs with the blood of martyrdom. Therefore, my example does pass both hurdles.
There are way to many proofs that he was a man that existed in history. Your argument to say otherwise is a really old and disproved one. http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/je... Sorry I haven't checked all of this source to make sure that it is well backed. I'm responding to too many others to do so properly. Also, the existence of Jesus is another discussion for another thread which we should do. Here I am simply attempting to show that according to Atheists there are no objective morals. From that we have to look at what the implications of that are.
Lastly, you would say the same thing to me if I were taking about science and used a similar example from fiction:
for example:
Science says that gravity is real
the matrix has Neo flying and defying gravity therefore both claims are absurd.
you would or at least should turn around and say: 1) the matrix was intended to be fictional science is not and 2) what does science back. This is exactly what I did and though you I could say that you didn't bring this up before, that doesn't mean that what you said was not true.
strawman
--------------------------------------
The bible contains no eyewitness testimony about Jesus.
--------------------------------------
Another strawman. Furthermore your claim that arguement (that I didn't make) is disproved is also ludicrous.
--------------------------------------
No one has proved the existence of Jesus. Also that phrase is non-sense.
--------------------------------------
Poppycock. Pick one of those proofs (your choice), don't bother typing it all out; just tell us what method of proof was used.
--------------------------------------
Some atheists think objective morals are possible but silly (that is the camp I belong to). Other atheists think they are impossible. Other atheists think they exist. And I'm sure there are other views I'm omitting. Don't tell to tell us what atheists think, because clearly there is great variety.
--------------------------------------
Sidenote: flying does not "defy" gravity.
Strawman = an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
How have the above quoted arguments met that definition? Perhaps I am confused on what you meant earlier.
"Some atheists think objective morals are possible but silly (that is the camp I belong to). Other atheists think they are impossible. Other atheists think they exist. And I'm sure there are other views I'm omitting. Don't tell to tell us what atheists think, because clearly there is great variety."
This is actually a good argument. I recant my earlier statement in that it was not all inclusive but rather represented only a select portion of atheist's thoughts. Thank you for the correction you have spoken wisely. I shall try to be more accurate next time.
"Sidenote: flying does not "defy" gravity."
Flying in a plane not defying gravity. However, the movie shows that Neo breaks the rules like gravity and momentum by stopping bullets and flying. This is all in conjunction with Morpheus' quote "It has the same basic rules like gravity. What you must learn is that these rules are no different than rules of a computer system. Some of them can be bent, others can be broken".
Here is an example:
I never made that argument. You created the argument, attributed it to me, then attacked it.
Nyarlathotep,
I'm sorry you must have meant something else by your prior comment:
"Funnier still, your example can't pass those hurdles either. For example: there is no known contemporary source for the life/death/resurrection of character Jesus."
If you did I apologize.
The thing is I meant exactly what I wrote. If I had meant more, I would have said more. It is very cavalier of you to formulate dubious arguments, assign them to me, then chastise me for them. Stop trying to read between the lines.
The thing is I meant exactly what I wrote. If I had meant more, I would have said more."
Wait so you meant that Jesus didn't exist in history? If that is the case that was my exact interpretation of what you said. Which you have affirmed just now...How then is it dubious to CORRECTLY interpret what someone says and then respond? Essentially you guys are saying that the only way to respond is to quote exactly and to not even to CORRECTLY utilize the intellectual capacity of interpretation and exegesis when reading a text by saying to "not read between the lines".
No, any rational person will read a body of text and extrapolate meaning. Even you. If I has misinterpreted, point it out and I will apologize as I have done so in the past. If not then these statements are confusing. Please clarify.
How can you in the SAME paragraph say that I have correctly extrapolated the meaning of your text and then say that it is dubious?
I'm starting to wonder what's really going on here.
I already told you I meant what I said. I did not say that, I did not mean it; for crying out loud stop suggesting it!
------------------------------
Holy shit. When did I say you correctly extrapolated the meaning?!? It seems like you are living in a fantasy land:
In short: a land where you prove or disprove anything you want, on a whim.
And after all of that; you want to make arguments about objectivity.
"there is no known contemporary source for the life/death/resurrection of character Jesus."
In all honesty if you did not mean anything other than this sentence than I do sincerely apologize. However, I do believe that the most likely conclusion to your statement or implication is that because there is no contemporary source then Jesus therefore does not exist. I just quoted your statement to a friend (a Christian) and asked him what would be the implied conclusion and he stated the same thing. I will ask a non-Christian the same thing. Perhaps it is simply hard to communicate textually alone, but I do think that that is a natural implication of your statement. Can you at least affirm that it is a natural implication of your statement even if you did not mean it?
IF? Wait just a fucking minute. I already told you:
Why are you using the word "IF" here; after I explained quite clearly twice that I meant exactly what I said and nothing more?
Noted! However, can you still answer the question:
"but I do think that that is a natural implication of your statement. Can you at least affirm that it is a natural implication of your statement even if you did not mean it?"
Absoulty not. Your strawman is not a logical consequence/conclusion of my statement; therefore it isn't an implication. X > Y, contains the implication Y < X. You can only get your strawman from my statement by using assumption or sheer fantasy (or some other non-sense). It was a textbook strawman.
------------------------------------------------------------
I asked you why you used the word "IF". Noted does not seem to be an answer to that question. Of course you are under no obligation to answer my question; but I have a nagging suspicion why you used the word "IF" and I'd like you to explain it (and I hope my suspicion is incorrect). Note: instead of accusing you of something you didn't actually say (which is what you did), I'm asking you to explain it.
Pages