The Instigator
Con (against)
9 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
4 Points

Subjective means Irrational

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/27/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,900 times Debate No: 53453
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (67)
Votes (3)




Just another line I heard from an atheist. Smells likes BS

Words as defined by the oxford online dictionary.

Subjective: Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions [1]
Irrational: Not logical or reasonable [2]



Thanks to Con for another Impromptu Debate!

Okay: I'll play sort of half devils advocate here as Con has misconstrued my opinion somewhat.

Though I will have to say that:

Any Belief based solely on Subjective grounds, without Objective evidence is Irrational.

Thus: Many Religious Beliefs are Entirely Irrational.

So many Theist Leaders, Theologians and Apologists argue for the Existence of their God, without Objective Evidence, solely on the Grounds that they cannot believe that a God does not exist.

Though I will pick on one particular Champion of the ( Evidence From Anecdote Fallacy) in William Lane Craig as a prime example of this type of extreme Irrationality!

The well known Apologist, William Lane Craig, claims a personal experience with God, again Without Objective Evidence and bases his Stolid belief on this experience, so strongly that No Evidence, No Matter How Convincing to Others Cannot Sway William Lane Craig from his Belief, based solely on his unproven personal experience, or Hallucination.

William Lane Craig debates regularly with Atheists and uses his personal experience ( Anecdote Fallacy) plus the fact that Atheists cannot disprove the existence of God ( Argument From Ignorance Fallacy) constantly in his debates.
Thus: William Lane Craig's beliefs and arguments are entirely Irrational and Fallacious!

Though Craig also applies many other Fallacies during his debates such as Ad Hominem and Circular Reasoning, Ad Populum and False Appeal To Authority Fallacies.

Now for a bit of FUN!
Poking holes in William Lane Craig's IRRATIONAL, SUBJECTIVE NONSENSE!

Objective: "(Of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts:historians try to be objective and impartial "

Argument From Ignorance: Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: (appeal to ignorance) the fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true. This error in reasoning is often expressed with influential rhetoric.

Irrational: Not logical or reasonable:irrational feelings of hostility

Anybody studying any Philosophy would automatically notice that the Subjective Claims of Theism For Their God are Definitely Irrational.

Thanks again Con!

Enjoy! :-D~
Debate Round No. 1


The resolution is "Subjective is Irrational". This is an exact quote of Sagey. He attempts to move the goal post by saying that's not what he really meant and attempts to redefine the resolution. I clearly stated in the first round the resolution is to be interpreted defining the terms in the oxford dictionary. He attempts to loop hole this by rewording the resolution. He accepted the challenge and therefore agrees with the resolution and wording as it is, originally quoted from him. I reject this attempt as a semantic attempt to build a straw man argument.

Case 1 Sagey confirms my position

It is clear that Sagey sees his own opinions as reasonable. He votes according to his prior held belief instead of on the merits of a debate. To put the following in context the majority of Reason for Decision (RFD) he provides follow this pattern:

"(implicit Sagey agrees with A) I (Sagey first person) vote for A. Because I have this personal history or I have this personal contention with B's premise, or B is obviously wrong because his arguments didn't convince me. These are the actions of Sagey:
"Firstly the dictionary reference Con sourced is Wrong, the literal translation of Atheism means "Without God". so there is something wrong with the reference...Proving that Merriam-Webster is a biased Dictionary which I've known for a decade now. I prefer less biased and conceited sources"
- So your opinion about the Merriam-Webster dictionary had a defining outcome of the debate. Interesting so many others scored that debate differently. Con won 20 to 8.
"...Christianity from overbearing, overzealous and too often annoying Christians who irrationally scream persecution when people stop them Proselytizing. Freedom of religion is not helping the situation... but no Proselytizing is allowed nor tolerated, from any religion or non-religion."
- Funny in a debate about it being unjust to prove or disprove someone's religion Sagey appears to be doing a lot of preaching. His platform for public office includes removing Freedom of Religion (sarcastic).
"... Pros arguments were more rational but only slightly..."
- Again Sagey votes according to his own contentions and opinion despite the fact that Con forfeited half the debate.
" besides Asexual people do exist on both sides, I've had clients and friends who are asexual..."
- Sagey's personal history and evidence again. Luckily other voters were not so biased. 7 to his 1
"Pro put up the better fight and provided more convincing sources, as Pro had Con backtracking and reeling from blows to the logic centers of Con's frontal lobes. Besides, I couldn't understand Con's mathematics. :-( I've become a dunce at Maths"
- Sagey's mathematical frontal lobes were reeling from Con's attacks based on high school math. But no matter Sagey votes in accordance with his opinion and a lack of understanding doesn't stand in his way.

If Sagey chooses to be intellectually honest, and is really pro of the resolution, he should willingly forfeit his right to vote.

Case 2 Social circles of trust

Since Sagey enjoys a personal narrative as evidence, I'll illustrate this point with a story. I have a twin brother who has to my knowledge has never lied to me. He tells me the truth even when he knows I would disapprove. I trust my brother. This is a belief of mine. It is a feeling and an opinion. So it is subjective. Yet to me it is reasonable
to trust my twin brother. It follows principles of validity based in abductive reasoning.

Trust is a subjective thing. In some systems the credibility of a source is given a ranking based on the trust opinion of some one else. Because the process of ranking follows principles of validity it is a rational process. Hence the subjective "Trust" is rational not irrational. Assume two agents A and B where A has an opinion about B, and B has an opinion about a proposition p. A recommendation of these two opinions consists of combining A’s opinion about B with B’s opinion about p in order for A to get an opinion about p[1] easily expressed in the formula:

This is not a trust attribute applied on objective grounds. It is applied on subjective grounds. It follows a mathematical process. A rational process. Therefore Subjective is Rational.

Case 3 Legal

In a court case juries are asked to way the evidence and give an opinion to a person's guilt or not guilty. This is to say their opinion is a reasonable doubt. The oxford dictionary gives a definition of reasonable as "Based on good sense".[2] What is meant by sense? The only definition of sense that applies is A feeling that something is the case. A feeling is subjective. So therefore in the legal sense to convict requires a subjective rational.

This is only further exemplified by the DC Court ruling. When an expert wittiness was unwilling to assert "certainty" the higher court upheld the inclusion of the expert testimony. Concluding, "In light of the foregoing authorities, we conclude that trial courts should not require a “reasonable degree of scientific certainty” before admitting expert opinions but may exclude expert testimony based on speculation or possibility." So an Expert Opinion is just that an opinion and it can be thrown out of court if it is speculation. Usually speculation is used in terms of validity for objective assertions. but this is case of using in terms to subjective assertions made by an expert.

Case 4 All Logic is subjective

Our actions and claims are never 100%. We go with what evidence at the time indicates the best reason. It is not just the case that 100% is in question. How is the determination for a piece of evidence being 45% or 65% likely.[5] In fact most of our every day decisions are subjective rationales.
The choice of the ’best’ course of action almost always involves trade-offs among multiple objectives. And, even when factors can be ‘objectively measured’ the relative importance of the objectives remains subjective. Therefore, all important decisions are subjective - See more at:
The choice of the ’best’ course of action almost always involves trade-offs among multiple objectives. And, even when factors can be ‘objectively measured’ the relative importance of the objectives remains subjective. Therefore, all important decisions are subjective - See more at:
[6] The resolution is accepted and explored by scientist.[7]


Sagey's first round was just trolling as indicated by his Comment, "Might as well use this debate to poke fun at Idiots who base their beliefs entirely on Subjective Nonsense". He uses the debate and the votes he cast as a podium to espouse his views, most with anecdotal personal narratives in place of evidence. His Subjective is Irrational. But not all Subjective is so. Some are Rational. Sagey doesn't know the difference.



Thanks Con for an extremely good and informative argument:

I agree with some points Con makes such as: THE ILLUSION OF REALITY

Firstly I'll Start This Argument With The Fact That Everything Anybody Perceives Is Actually Nothing More Than An Illusion.

Watch the first video: It will hopefully get you Thinking on the right track for the rest of this argument.

Essentially this actually supports Con's argument but now I will bring about where we differ:

Out of this Illusion of Reality we have developed a scientific method to determine Levels Of Consistent and cohesive reality can be considered as Objective Reality or some term Coherent Reality as Factual Reality as we have deemed Coherence as useful, and tangible.

Subjectivity is Incoherent and unverifiable, in that it is mostly a product of the mind , individual and non tangible.

Essentially, our Brains alter our perceptions to make us feel comfortable with these perceptions as well as to protect us from harm and keep our bodies sustained with hydration and nutrition.

The Human Brain is possibly the single most Deceptive Entity in the known universe.

With greater intelligence also comes greater deception.

So: How Do We Normally Sort Out Objective Reality From Subjective Reality?
Testing against perceived factual knowledge: It's the only means we have!

Though prodding and recording things we cannot see, such as Quantum particles has become extremely tricky, as to detect subatomic particles, we need active instruments, but, these active detectors create interference with the particles we want to detect and thus produce the Observer Effect: Some, as in that video, wrongly attribute the Observer Effect to the consciousness of those watching, but, it is only that the methods of detecting particles/waves create their own waveforms and thus interfere with the wave nature of the particles.

There you have it: The true explanation of The Observer Effect in a nutshell.

Using Subjective (Beta) Reality only to make decisions is Irrational, it causes errors. Enter George Bush.

The following source refers to Alpha Reality (Objective) and Beta Reality (Subjective)

Con has covered most of the Definitions so I need not repeat these.

All Perceptions, even those involving OR items. This is why Reality is an Illusion, as we are all observing our reality subjectively, not Objectively.

Our initial perception of everything is Entirely Subjective.

Though Subjective Reality also contains Illusions, and Visions and Voices from various sources such as Hallucinations.

Hallucinations can produce experiences so Vivid that the sufferer is convinced that it is an Objective perception. In other words, the visions and/or voices are so vivid that they appear more real than natural reality. From a neurology viewpoint this is quite simply explained by the amount of Focus hallucinations attain. In the real world we have to share our visual and auditory experiences with the other senses and there is also a huge amount of internal white noise occurring in our brains or other thoughts. During some Hallucinations the other thoughts and senses are muted so all our focus is drawn to the Hallucination which naturally is far more vivid and clearer (without noise) and thus it appears Ultra Real.

An analogy would be Television reception, in the normal environment we are coping with many receptions and in a fringe area of focus, thus we have noisy and poor reception at the best of times, but in a Hallucination, we are set up next to the only transmitter in the region (our own brain) and the signal is very strong and clear.

Thus Subjective experiences can by some be taken wrongly as Objective Experiences:

Some theorise that Abraham who created the God of Judaism, Islam and Christianity may have experienced such Hallucinations.

Since, in modern times with a high level of general psychological knowledge, it is considered Irrational to believe your own Hallucinations are Reality, it is Even More Irrational To Consider Hallucinations Of Others As Reality.

Thus, potentially there are 5 billion out of 7 billion people on this planet, believing the Hallucinations of Abraham were Reality.

Thus 5 out of 7 people on planet Earth are potentially highly Irrational.

Magic And Subjective Perception (Illusion)

Magician: An Illusionist, Uses quirks or anomalies in the perceptions of an audience to trick an audience into false perceptions or illusions.

The fact that Magicians are able to fool people so very easily is a demonstration that our perceptions of what we witness are never accurate.

Because any individual only perceives 3 to 5 items in any event and magicians deliberately use this knowledge by making certain there are several distracting factors for every magic trick/deception, thus making it unlikely that any individual will be able to debunk the trick.

They deliberately draw the focus away from their deceptive movements or cloak the movements while making the audience focus on something more interesting such as an attractive assistant making distracting movements.

Just take for instance a magician chopping a person in half and later the person appears complete and totally unharmed.

The act produces an initial perception that the magician is cutting the person in half, we go through life like this, our initial perceptions only pick up on a few characteristics of our environment and our brains reconstruct this by drawing on knowledge and previous experiences to produce a consistent picture of the world. We do this during the act and feel a sense of horror as it really appears that the person is really being cut in half.

The magician then parades the halves of the person in front of us, where again we draw on past experiences and our brain tells us, yes, this appears to be real, the person is in half.

The halved person is cloaked and the audience is distracted again to suddenly produce the individual complete, without any scars or internal damage and our brains retract our perception of the person being in half to a sigh of relief.

Thus we applaud the Magician for having fooled us.

Yet our brains are fooling us similarly 24/7 for our entire lives without us being aware of it.

It is our brains and poor perceptive abilities that allowed the Magician to deceive us in the first place.

Facts: Are the ultimate in Objective Reality entities, Facts are Knowledge that has been Extensively Perceived As Justified by Objective Reality.

Yet some Religious Fundamentalists Assert Subjective Reality Notions as Objective Facts, Which is a Completely Irrational Leap Of Verification.

True Objective Facts take many years of verification using Rational Analysis (Objective Reality Testing) to become Objective Facts.

Returning to William Lane Craig as a Classic Example of this Irrationality:

Craig has publicly stated that no amount of evidence against God will ever change his Belief for the Existence of God, which was confirmed to him by a Personal Experience (possibly a hallucination).

Using the Magic trick as an analogy:

William Lane Craig is so utterly convinced that the Individual is Cut In Half, (His Perception of the Illusion) that even seeing the individual walking around without a single mark, will never convince him that it was only an illusion.

Craig will remain convinced the person is in two pieces and if he was a judge, he'd have the magician on trial for murder as he cannot be convinced the person is okay.

Though if somebody cornered him, and demonstrated clearly that the person was alive and complete, without any organ damage, Craig would in his traditional Apologist style, likely concede that the person was magically put back together.

Such a demonstration of the Delusional concepts of many Fundamentalists.

The take that giant leap of Verification and Assert their Subjective Concepts as Objective Facts.

When there is absolutely no verification existing.

Thus: Fundamentalism and Religion too often make,
"Subjective mean Irrational"

Debate Round No. 2
67 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mhykiel 2 years ago
@Wylted just challenge me. Debating or discussing anything with you does not interest me at the moment.
Posted by Mhykiel 2 years ago
The reason why I put pro estate tax is from the trigenerational brehton law. The reason why I am pro welfare is because people fall on hard times, I don't intend on it being a long term solution for some one.

You apparently want to instigate a debate in which I will have to argue for an absolute position, instead of what I really think such things should be. I think government programs should be rigorously thought out.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
You're pro the estate tax and welfare, which is retarded. Maybe we could debate one of those things. I'd have to instigate though. I gain less ELO if somebody with your ELO level instigates.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
That's cowardly. You're saying I'm biased, but are unwilling to look at my full justification. I'll debate you on almost anything you want, even if I have to play devils advocate. No offense but I argue the theological POV better than you do, despite being atheist. Do you want to debate whether my vote was biased or not?
Posted by Mhykiel 2 years ago
I won't read thousands of characters of your RFD. I welcome any topic we disagree on for debate.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
The vote bombing thing is incredibly offensive. You have no ideal how many hours and thought I put into determining votes for a lot of these debates.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
I assure you his last round trolling and new arguments had no factor in my decision. I don't appreciate being mentioned in your other debate about biased voting. I will break my decision down for you so, you can understand my logic. It will take a few hours to write and be several thousand characters, but it will be up when I'm done with it.
Posted by Mhykiel 2 years ago
Sagey just admitted his round was trolling. And that he only presented something relevant to the resolution in the last round. A round I could not rebuttal. Sagey did not even refute my arguments from legal case study, trust evaluations, or anything.

If I debated you on who should have won this debate you would lose because no one would be interested in voting and being a participate you would be unable to vote bomb.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
What's the strong tendency in my voting? I don't favor people based on religious preference political ideology etc. I only look at the arguments and calculate how logical they are. I may give a more detailed RFD of this debate so you can see what I mean. I have no problem breaking this debate down, point by point.
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
The attacks on Sagey were poisoning the well and not applicable to the resolution. I'm aware both of you made a ton of mistakes. I also assigned an equal amount of BOP here because con instigated (among other factors).

It really seemed that Sagey provided more evidence that stood up to refutation or was ignored to support the conclusion that subjective means irrational.

My vote was not a vote bomb. The vote I mentioned was. My votes are all fair, even when they are wrong. I have an extremely strong voting record. I can almost garauntee that had you set ELO restrictions on the voting and put the voting period at 30 days Sagey would have won.

I may be willing to debate that Sagey should have won this, if you want. I warn you that you would lose, though.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Daktoria 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made fundamental errors in confusing the philosophical debate at hand with a religious debate. While Con does say the line smells like BS from an atheist, that doesn't mean the atheism at hand is necessarily what makes the line BS. Unfortunately, for all that Pro clamors about distractions, he gets distracted himself. Pro also specifies the debate towards vertical dualism in round two when referring to hallucinations in dispute of facts. This is despite how the subjective can refer to the horizontal diversity of perspectives in society as well. For example, let us say we have a water filter, and we pour water through that filter into a bunch of glasses. Let us then say some glasses have dirty water while other glasses have clean water. However, let us then say we only subjectively experience the dirty glasses of water instead of objectively experiencing all glasses of water. Does that mean it's irrational to believe the water filter is broken? No.
Vote Placed by TrueScotsman 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Giving this debate to Mhykiel, on the basis that Sagey changed his contention after the debate had started to this: Fundamentalism and Religion too often make,"Subjective mean Irrational" This basically was an argument that means Subjective arguments are generally irrational, or most of the time especially concerning religion. Myhiel's burden was to show that Subjective doesn't necessarily mean irrational, I think he fulfilled this burden.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I think that Sagey does have a hard time seperating his bias from his voting, but that has nothing to do with this debate and he's getting better. I think it was bad conduct to bring that up at all. In this shared BOP debate pro did a slightly better job of proving his case than Con did.