Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

The Human Predicament

Crede
Posts: 455
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2011 2:58:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
So CosmicAlfonzo and I recently had a debate on the Human Predicament (HP). [http://www.debate.org...]
Looking over it now I realize that I did not supply enough definitions and therefore we had just a battle of symantics. The key term that needed deffinition was happiness. I agree happiness is subjective, but the question is what does the idea of happiness share between everybody? I think happiness for an individual is their particular preference on a certain scale. For example owning a car. I'm happy that I own a car rather than not, but somebody else might be happy they don't own a car in order to not contribute to polution. So happiness is subjective, but the idea of happiness is the same for everybody in regards to them preferring one thing over another.

In light of this then objective happiness would mean that the scale here, or the preference, would have to be based on an objective scale. Since God is the only one that can provide an objective scale, then believeing in God is the only way to attain objective happiness.

Now I know the argument here is that what if God isn't real then your happiness is still subjective. This is true, however it is the only logical possiblity for objective scales to exist, and therefore a way to escape the HP.

My problem in the debate was I did not give this definition of happiness. I tried through debating the idea of possible objective realities providing the mind an escape of the HP, but it didn't ever really define happiness which is what the debate hinged on. I wasn't trying to be a dishonest debater, rather I didn't realize the important of certain definitions. Live and learn I guess.

So in light of this definition, what are your thoughts regarding the HP? If you don't know what it is just read my opening round in the debate.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2011 3:14:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
An atheist could just as easily use something else as their measuring stick for happiness, and it would be just as "objective" as you understand objectivity.

I already addressed this.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2011 3:20:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Also, you still are mistaken on the human predicament.

The human predicament is the false belief that you need objective meaning, value, and purpose in order to be happy.

Realizing that you do not need these things in order to be happy is how you escape the predicament.

See, this debate was faulty because of the fact that you do not even grasp the concepts of the words that you are using.

We were discussing beliefs here, not whether the beliefs were true. You repeatedly said this, yet you very clearly were trying to make it into a debate over that.

Objectivity is usually defined as being what is true regardless of human opinion, and you were making the assumption that your position on the existence of the theistic god somehow effects whether or not there is such a thing as objective happiness.

You're argument is completely incoherent because of this, and I don't understand how anyone but the dullest could find it convincing in the slightest.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Crede
Posts: 455
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2011 3:20:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/20/2011 3:14:07 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
An atheist could just as easily use something else as their measuring stick for happiness, and it would be just as "objective" as you understand objectivity.

I already addressed this.

I don't know how that would be? An Atheist doesn't have any way to provide for a logical possiblity in regards to an "objective" scale.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2011 3:28:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/20/2011 3:20:09 PM, Crede wrote:
At 10/20/2011 3:14:07 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
An atheist could just as easily use something else as their measuring stick for happiness, and it would be just as "objective" as you understand objectivity.

I already addressed this.

I don't know how that would be? An Atheist doesn't have any way to provide for a logical possiblity in regards to an "objective" scale.

Sure an atheist could, but it would be horsesh!t, because objective happiness is an absurdity. It is utterly impossible to say, "I am happier than Jill by 20 smile units on the happy scale".

Under your rather asinine "scale" of measuring happiness, an atheist who is happy would be objectively unhappy because God fuggin' said so based on his arbitrary way of "measuring" that relies on things that are impossible to measure.

Your position is offensively ignorant, and your argument is incomprehensibly stupid.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Crede
Posts: 455
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2011 3:29:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/20/2011 3:20:05 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Also, you still are mistaken on the human predicament.

The human predicament is the false belief that you need objective meaning, value, and purpose in order to be happy.

Realizing that you do not need these things in order to be happy is how you escape the predicament.

See, this debate was faulty because of the fact that you do not even grasp the concepts of the words that you are using.

We were discussing beliefs here, not whether the beliefs were true. You repeatedly said this, yet you very clearly were trying to make it into a debate over that.

Objectivity is usually defined as being what is true regardless of human opinion, and you were making the assumption that your position on the existence of the theistic god somehow effects whether or not there is such a thing as objective happiness.

You're argument is completely incoherent because of this, and I don't understand how anyone but the dullest could find it convincing in the slightest.

I was debating that your belief on a possible existence of an objective landscape could provide you subjective happiness on an objective scale. So yes your happiness is still subjective, but allows a way to justify your happiness in accordance with a possible objective worth in relation to everything. I understand your definition of happiness, and I apologize for not giving mine. Also not defining "objective happiness" and how I think it can exist. I think it can exist in that we being God's creation are made with a desire to be close to him and his will, even though many suppress this or twist it all up. So "objective" happiness would be happiness that is not based on our idea of what happiness is, but what God deems to give joy and happiness. Does this make sense?
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2011 3:32:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/20/2011 3:29:04 PM, Crede wrote:
At 10/20/2011 3:20:05 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Also, you still are mistaken on the human predicament.

The human predicament is the false belief that you need objective meaning, value, and purpose in order to be happy.

Realizing that you do not need these things in order to be happy is how you escape the predicament.

See, this debate was faulty because of the fact that you do not even grasp the concepts of the words that you are using.

We were discussing beliefs here, not whether the beliefs were true. You repeatedly said this, yet you very clearly were trying to make it into a debate over that.

Objectivity is usually defined as being what is true regardless of human opinion, and you were making the assumption that your position on the existence of the theistic god somehow effects whether or not there is such a thing as objective happiness.

You're argument is completely incoherent because of this, and I don't understand how anyone but the dullest could find it convincing in the slightest.

I was debating that your belief on a possible existence of an objective landscape could provide you subjective happiness on an objective scale. So yes your happiness is still subjective, but allows a way to justify your happiness in accordance with a possible objective worth in relation to everything. I understand your definition of happiness, and I apologize for not giving mine. Also not defining "objective happiness" and how I think it can exist. I think it can exist in that we being God's creation are made with a desire to be close to him and his will, even though many suppress this or twist it all up. So "objective" happiness would be happiness that is not based on our idea of what happiness is, but what God deems to give joy and happiness. Does this make sense?

Your entire position relies on the redefining of happiness to suit your position, and you complain that our debate turned into some kind of argument over semantics?

The reason I called you a dishonest and dirty debater is because of the fact you are the ones doing these things, you certainly can't blame me.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Crede
Posts: 455
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2011 3:39:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Your entire position relies on the redefining of happiness to suit your position, and you complain that our debate turned into some kind of argument over semantics?

The reason I called you a dishonest and dirty debater is because of the fact you are the ones doing these things, you certainly can't blame me.

When did I ever blame you for anything. Rather I have been trying to just discuss something to understand it, and if I'm the one not understanding something I'm trying to find out where, and when I do try and elaborate on the area to let you know where my thoughts are. I just started "debating" and I'm learning a lot about key areas, mainly definitions. I should have laid out a clear definition in the beginning of the debate. I didn't do this not out of dishonesty but rather because of how green I am to this. I'm not blaming you, but I still think the HP is a true concept so naturally I will still argue my side. Nothing personal or dishonest here, just a learning curve.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2011 4:03:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Ok, I'll take your word for it.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp