Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

Do these 2 people have the same positions?

induced
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 1:23:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Do the people in any of the following scenarios have any substantive differences of opinion, or are there only semantical differences? I think that Person 1 and Person 2 just define words differently, and they still have the same positions if you think about it.

Scenario 1:
Person 1:
-identifies as an atheist
-believes that the universe exists
-believes that the universe is a magnificent and powerful entity
-insists that no god exists
Person 2:
-doesn't believe in a traditionally defined god
-defines "god" as a magnificent and powerful entity
-believes that the universe is a magnificent and powerful entity
-concludes that god exists

Scenario 2:
Person 1:
-doesn't believe in the validity of any moral values
-dislikes torture
-says torture isn't wrong
Person 2:
-doesn't believe in the validity of objective moral values
-believes in subjective moral values
-dislikes torture
-defines "immoral" as any action i dislike
-concludes that torture is immoral

Scenario 3:
Person 1:
-says 2+2=4

Person 2:
-says 2+2=5
-says 2+2 doesn't equal 4
-defines "5" as the value of 1+1+1+1
-defines "4" as the value of 1+1+1+1+1
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 2:47:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/5/2014 1:23:15 AM, induced wrote:
Do the people in any of the following scenarios have any substantive differences of opinion, or are there only semantical differences? I think that Person 1 and Person 2 just define words differently, and they still have the same positions if you think about it.

Scenario 1:
Person 1:
-identifies as an atheist
-believes that the universe exists
--I am not confident 'belief' is the word to use here...
-believes that the universe is a magnificent and powerful entity
Speculation
-insists that no god exists
As derived that no evidence of such is present
Person 2:
-doesn't believe in a traditionally defined god
-defines "god" as a magnificent and powerful entity
Speculation.
-believes that the universe is a magnificent and powerful entity
-concludes that god exists
circular logic, you already stated that person 2 inherently has a sense of God as the creator.


Scenario 2:
Person 1:
-doesn't believe in the validity of any moral values
-dislikes torture
-says torture isn't wrong
Person 2:
-doesn't believe in the validity of objective moral values
-believes in subjective moral values
-dislikes torture
-defines "immoral" as any action i dislike
-concludes that torture is immoral


Scenario 3:
Person 1:
-says 2+2=4

Person 2:
-says 2+2=5
-says 2+2 doesn't equal 4
-defines "5" as the value of 1+1+1+1
-defines "4" as the value of 1+1+1+1+1

This part, along with the morals questions, ya lost me.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
induced
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 7:15:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm not asking you to judge their logic, or choose a side. I'm asking if they ultimately have the same positions, even though they define terms differently. Does that make sense?

Think of it this way

-Bob defines a "warb" as a goblin
-Emma defines a "warb" as a horse
-Both Bob and Emma believe in horses, but not goblins
-Emma states that warbs exist, but Bob states that warbs do not exist.

See how they have the same position, but just make opposing statements because their definitions are different?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 10:09:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/5/2014 1:23:15 AM, induced wrote:
Do the people in any of the following scenarios have any substantive differences of opinion, or are there only semantical differences? I think that Person 1 and Person 2 just define words differently, and they still have the same positions if you think about it.

Scenario 1:
Person 1:
-identifies as an atheist
-believes that the universe exists
-believes that the universe is a magnificent and powerful entity
-insists that no god exists
Person 2:
-doesn't believe in a traditionally defined god
-defines "god" as a magnificent and powerful entity
-believes that the universe is a magnificent and powerful entity
-concludes that god exists


Scenario 2:
Person 1:
-doesn't believe in the validity of any moral values
-dislikes torture
-says torture isn't wrong
Person 2:
-doesn't believe in the validity of objective moral values
-believes in subjective moral values
-dislikes torture
-defines "immoral" as any action i dislike
-concludes that torture is immoral


Scenario 3:
Person 1:
-says 2+2=4

Person 2:
-says 2+2=5
-says 2+2 doesn't equal 4
-defines "5" as the value of 1+1+1+1
-defines "4" as the value of 1+1+1+1+1

Would have been easier to a mix of letters and numbers. Anyway...

Scenario 1: They both share the same position with one possible exception; We know Person 2 does not believe in a traditionally defined God as does Person 1, however we don't know whether Person 2 shares Person 1's belief that the traditional God does not exist. Person 2 may simply reject the proposition as unsupported.

Scenario 2: You made this one abundantly clear...
Person 1: doesn't believe in the validity of any moral values
Person 2: believes in subjective moral values

Scenario 3: Complete semantics
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 11:48:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/5/2014 1:23:15 AM, induced wrote:
Do the people in any of the following scenarios have any substantive differences of opinion, or are there only semantical differences? I think that Person 1 and Person 2 just define words differently, and they still have the same positions if you think about it.

Scenario 1:
Person 1:
-identifies as an atheist
-believes that the universe exists
-believes that the universe is a magnificent and powerful entity
-insists that no god exists
Person 2:
-doesn't believe in a traditionally defined god
-defines "god" as a magnificent and powerful entity
-believes that the universe is a magnificent and powerful entity
-concludes that god exists


Scenario 2:
Person 1:
-doesn't believe in the validity of any moral values
-dislikes torture
-says torture isn't wrong
Person 2:
-doesn't believe in the validity of objective moral values
-believes in subjective moral values
-dislikes torture
-defines "immoral" as any action i dislike
-concludes that torture is immoral


Scenario 3:
Person 1:
-says 2+2=4

Person 2:
-says 2+2=5
-says 2+2 doesn't equal 4
-defines "5" as the value of 1+1+1+1
-defines "4" as the value of 1+1+1+1+1

They are all the same people. They just use different labels for the same concepts. A label can refer to whatever the hell you want, there is no such thing as an "objective label", and this includes numbers (which are labels for concepts too). If somebody defines the God as the universe, he hasn't added anything to his belief set, he just uses a different description for the same concepts.

It is the concepts that you believe in that cause different beliefs, not the labels you use.
abyteofbrain
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 1:22:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/5/2014 1:23:15 AM, induced wrote:
Do the people in any of the following scenarios have any substantive differences of opinion, or are there only semantical differences? I think that Person 1 and Person 2 just define words differently, and they still have the same positions if you think about it.

Scenario 1:
Person 1:
-identifies as an atheist
-believes that the universe exists
-believes that the universe is a magnificent and powerful entity
-insists that no god exists
Person 2:
-doesn't believe in a traditionally defined god
-defines "god" as a magnificent and powerful entity
-believes that the universe is a magnificent and powerful entity
-concludes that god exists


Scenario 2:
Person 1:
-doesn't believe in the validity of any moral values
-dislikes torture
-says torture isn't wrong
Person 2:
-doesn't believe in the validity of objective moral values
-believes in subjective moral values
-dislikes torture
-defines "immoral" as any action i dislike
-concludes that torture is immoral


Scenario 3:
Person 1:
-says 2+2=4

Person 2:
-says 2+2=5
-says 2+2 doesn't equal 4
-defines "5" as the value of 1+1+1+1
-defines "4" as the value of 1+1+1+1+1

It sounds the same to me, but it depends of course, on the situation. This certainly isn't enough information to judge accurately.
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 1:42:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It's pretty obvious that they are all dying and on their way to Hell, except for Number 1 in scenario 3. That is the only one who shows a hint of having a grip on reality.