Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Objectivity Vs Subjectivity

BradK
Posts: 475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2014 2:05:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Hello,

I think religious disputes boil down to objectivity vs subjectivity. If something is objective, then it means people have to agree on it. If something is subjective, then it means people can disagree on it.

I think religious debates have no place on a debate website because religious belief is subjective. One guy thinks god is a single entity. Another guy thinks god is 3 persons. Another guy thinks god is just a man made invention. Since religion is subjective, it will ALWAYS be disagreed on. So it has no place on an objective website, right?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2014 2:08:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/14/2014 2:05:12 PM, BradK wrote:
Hello,

I think religious disputes boil down to objectivity vs subjectivity. If something is objective, then it means people have to agree on it. If something is subjective, then it means people can disagree on it.

I think religious debates have no place on a debate website because religious belief is subjective. One guy thinks god is a single entity. Another guy thinks god is 3 persons. Another guy thinks god is just a man made invention. Since religion is subjective, it will ALWAYS be disagreed on. So it has no place on an objective website, right?

I wouldn't say this is a website made only for objective claims. We can change our perspective on different subjects that will always subjective but be enlightened by new evidence for believing in a different point of view.
BradK
Posts: 475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2014 2:14:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/14/2014 2:08:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/14/2014 2:05:12 PM, BradK wrote:
Hello,

I think religious disputes boil down to objectivity vs subjectivity. If something is objective, then it means people have to agree on it. If something is subjective, then it means people can disagree on it.

I think religious debates have no place on a debate website because religious belief is subjective. One guy thinks god is a single entity. Another guy thinks god is 3 persons. Another guy thinks god is just a man made invention. Since religion is subjective, it will ALWAYS be disagreed on. So it has no place on an objective website, right?

I wouldn't say this is a website made only for objective claims. We can change our perspective on different subjects that will always subjective but be enlightened by new evidence for believing in a different point of view.

Yeah if something had a 100% objective answer then it wouldn't be up for debate in the first place. Debates need to happen on things where there is disagreement.

I'm not trying to suggest some end-all tool to test whether something needs to be debated or not. I just think that debating god's existence day in and day out is rather useless. People are always going to disagree on that, and a lot of them are indoctrinated to hold their particular belief. Any sensible person agrees that the evolution debate is over for example. I think the god debate is also over, not because we know the answer but because the debate itself is designed to never have an answer.

So:
evolution - has an answer, no need to debate
god's existence - will never be answered, no need to debate
Fatihah
Posts: 7,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2014 2:32:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/14/2014 2:05:12 PM, BradK wrote:
Hello,

I think religious disputes boil down to objectivity vs subjectivity. If something is objective, then it means people have to agree on it. If something is subjective, then it means people can disagree on it.

I think religious debates have no place on a debate website because religious belief is subjective. One guy thinks god is a single entity. Another guy thinks god is 3 persons. Another guy thinks god is just a man made invention. Since religion is subjective, it will ALWAYS be disagreed on. So it has no place on an objective website, right?

Response: Disagreement does not make something subjective. If one says 2+2 is not 4, that does not make math subjective. It means the person is clearly deluded. Similarly, religious beliefs that are subjective does not change the fact that there are religious beliefs are objective, such as Islam.

So what both religious and non-religious people need to do is place an argument, and support it with observable and testable evidence, and deductive logic based on such evidence. That includes for atheist to desist from saying something is true because they read it in a book, without observable testable evidence and deductive logic based on such evidence that the author themselves are truthful. The same applies for religious people who claim there book is true, without the same evidence to support the author is truthful.
BradK
Posts: 475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2014 2:40:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/14/2014 2:32:33 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 8/14/2014 2:05:12 PM, BradK wrote:
Hello,

I think religious disputes boil down to objectivity vs subjectivity. If something is objective, then it means people have to agree on it. If something is subjective, then it means people can disagree on it.

I think religious debates have no place on a debate website because religious belief is subjective. One guy thinks god is a single entity. Another guy thinks god is 3 persons. Another guy thinks god is just a man made invention. Since religion is subjective, it will ALWAYS be disagreed on. So it has no place on an objective website, right?

Response: Disagreement does not make something subjective. If one says 2+2 is not 4, that does not make math subjective. It means the person is clearly deluded. Similarly, religious beliefs that are subjective does not change the fact that there are religious beliefs are objective, such as Islam.

So what both religious and non-religious people need to do is place an argument, and support it with observable and testable evidence, and deductive logic based on such evidence. That includes for atheist to desist from saying something is true because they read it in a book, without observable testable evidence and deductive logic based on such evidence that the author themselves are truthful. The same applies for religious people who claim there book is true, without the same evidence to support the author is truthful.

you are kind of a one trick pony though. Your 2 arguments consist of (1) repeating patterns need a god to create them and (2) the quran made people go against "their liking" so it was written by god. Which are based on fallacies I'm not going to get into, and you can call me "deluded" all you want or any other word you so choose but I'm still not getting into it. You believe the quran is from god, that's your personal belief, ok great. End of discussion
Fatihah
Posts: 7,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2014 4:06:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/14/2014 2:40:18 PM, BradK wrote:

you are kind of a one trick pony though. Your 2 arguments consist of (1) repeating patterns need a god to create them and (2) the quran made people go against "their liking" so it was written by god. Which are based on fallacies I'm not going to get into, and you can call me "deluded" all you want or any other word you so choose but I'm still not getting into it. You believe the quran is from god, that's your personal belief, ok great. End of discussion

Response: You mean two tricks that continue to expose the absurdities in your own logic and confirm that the Qur'an is the true word of Allah. Yes, the evidence is clear, so the discussion is over.
BradK
Posts: 475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2014 4:13:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/14/2014 4:06:25 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 8/14/2014 2:40:18 PM, BradK wrote:

you are kind of a one trick pony though. Your 2 arguments consist of (1) repeating patterns need a god to create them and (2) the quran made people go against "their liking" so it was written by god. Which are based on fallacies I'm not going to get into, and you can call me "deluded" all you want or any other word you so choose but I'm still not getting into it. You believe the quran is from god, that's your personal belief, ok great. End of discussion

Response: You mean two tricks that continue to expose the absurdities in your own logic and confirm that the Qur'an is the true word of Allah. Yes, the evidence is clear, so the discussion is over.

you do know that you are the only person who thinks "atheist logic" is absurd right?
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2014 4:39:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/14/2014 2:05:12 PM, BradK wrote:
Hello,

I think religious disputes boil down to objectivity vs subjectivity. If something is objective, then it means people have to agree on it. If something is subjective, then it means people can disagree on it.

I think religious debates have no place on a debate website because religious belief is subjective. One guy thinks god is a single entity. Another guy thinks god is 3 persons. Another guy thinks god is just a man made invention. Since religion is subjective, it will ALWAYS be disagreed on. So it has no place on an objective website, right?

The problem is you talking in general terms taking views of religious or none-r its always subjective, but examining the claim makes the differences. lets take for example morality, the problem with atheism is its always changes with time, social pressure etc so there is no absulote truth every athiest can to reason in varies ways... religious belief is also subjective (chosing to believe) but after that taking morality for instence it will be 100% true no matter what cuz God says so not humans with limited mind. in athiesm its not working, in every aspect everybody can reason in his way so its not 100% true. that is a huge difference between the 2... anyway i dont get it why we should debate on religious matters....
Never fart near dog
BradK
Posts: 475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2014 4:48:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/14/2014 4:39:04 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 8/14/2014 2:05:12 PM, BradK wrote:
Hello,

I think religious disputes boil down to objectivity vs subjectivity. If something is objective, then it means people have to agree on it. If something is subjective, then it means people can disagree on it.

I think religious debates have no place on a debate website because religious belief is subjective. One guy thinks god is a single entity. Another guy thinks god is 3 persons. Another guy thinks god is just a man made invention. Since religion is subjective, it will ALWAYS be disagreed on. So it has no place on an objective website, right?

The problem is you talking in general terms taking views of religious or none-r its always subjective, but examining the claim makes the differences. lets take for example morality, the problem with atheism is its always changes with time, social pressure etc so there is no absulote truth every athiest can to reason in varies ways... religious belief is also subjective (chosing to believe) but after that taking morality for instence it will be 100% true no matter what cuz God says so not humans with limited mind. in athiesm its not working, in every aspect everybody can reason in his way so its not 100% true. that is a huge difference between the 2... anyway i dont get it why we should debate on religious matters....

i agree I don't know why we waste time debating religious matters either.
GodChoosesLife
Posts: 3,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2014 4:54:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If this is your logic, given the reasons you gave, then why not just view religion as education? There would be no means of debating anything. It would only be a means of gaining knowledge.
Better than deserved, as ALWAYS.
"The strongest principle of growth lies in human choices."
"The Lord doesn't promise us a perfect life that is free of problems, but he does promise that He'll get us through anything." ~SweeTea
"Good Times" ~ Max
"If Jesus isn't in heaven, then it's not heaven; instead, it's hell." ~anonymous
"Suffering is unimaginably confusing, but it's a way to be drawn closer to God" ~Me
"Tell me what consumes your heart most, and I'll tell you who your God is." ~Dad
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2014 4:56:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/14/2014 4:48:57 PM, BradK wrote:
At 8/14/2014 4:39:04 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 8/14/2014 2:05:12 PM, BradK wrote:
Hello,

I think religious disputes boil down to objectivity vs subjectivity. If something is objective, then it means people have to agree on it. If something is subjective, then it means people can disagree on it.

I think religious debates have no place on a debate website because religious belief is subjective. One guy thinks god is a single entity. Another guy thinks god is 3 persons. Another guy thinks god is just a man made invention. Since religion is subjective, it will ALWAYS be disagreed on. So it has no place on an objective website, right?

The problem is you talking in general terms taking views of religious or none-r its always subjective, but examining the claim makes the differences. lets take for example morality, the problem with atheism is its always changes with time, social pressure etc so there is no absulote truth every athiest can to reason in varies ways... religious belief is also subjective (chosing to believe) but after that taking morality for instence it will be 100% true no matter what cuz God says so not humans with limited mind. in athiesm its not working, in every aspect everybody can reason in his way so its not 100% true. that is a huge difference between the 2... anyway i dont get it why we should debate on religious matters....

i agree I don't know why we waste time debating religious matters either.

"WE" means athiests, religious people thinks the same thing about "athiest" matters, so everybody wasting time here lol.. im bored me too :D
Never fart near dog
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2014 4:57:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/14/2014 4:56:15 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 8/14/2014 4:48:57 PM, BradK wrote:
At 8/14/2014 4:39:04 PM, POPOO5560 wrote:
At 8/14/2014 2:05:12 PM, BradK wrote:
Hello,

I think religious disputes boil down to objectivity vs subjectivity. If something is objective, then it means people have to agree on it. If something is subjective, then it means people can disagree on it.

I think religious debates have no place on a debate website because religious belief is subjective. One guy thinks god is a single entity. Another guy thinks god is 3 persons. Another guy thinks god is just a man made invention. Since religion is subjective, it will ALWAYS be disagreed on. So it has no place on an objective website, right?

The problem is you talking in general terms taking views of religious or none-r its always subjective, but examining the claim makes the differences. lets take for example morality, the problem with atheism is its always changes with time, social pressure etc so there is no absulote truth every athiest can to reason in varies ways... religious belief is also subjective (chosing to believe) but after that taking morality for instence it will be 100% true no matter what cuz God says so not humans with limited mind. in athiesm its not working, in every aspect everybody can reason in his way so its not 100% true. that is a huge difference between the 2... anyway i dont get it why we should debate on religious matters....

i agree I don't know why we waste time debating religious matters either.

"WE" means athiests, religious people thinks the same thing about "athiest" matters, so everybody wasting time here lol.. im bored me too :D

grammar!!
Never fart near dog
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2014 5:15:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/14/2014 2:05:12 PM, BradK wrote:
Hello,

I think religious disputes boil down to objectivity vs subjectivity. If something is objective, then it means people have to agree on it. If something is subjective, then it means people can disagree on it.

I think religious debates have no place on a debate website because religious belief is subjective. One guy thinks god is a single entity. Another guy thinks god is 3 persons. Another guy thinks god is just a man made invention. Since religion is subjective, it will ALWAYS be disagreed on. So it has no place on an objective website, right?

It depends. I sometimes enjoy having a discussion with other people on religion, provided both sides remain civil and that we're not discussing something bad or negative. For example, I have no wish to debate the bad verses in the Bible/Quran/holy books and so on. It fuels negativity and hatred and accomplishes pretty much nothing except, "Oh look at what all these people did."

On the other hand, I enjoy when people partake in discussions on how we can improve our world as we live in it, regardless of through what medium we do it through (religion or not). This is far superior to simply dwelling in the bad parts of an ideology you don't even agree with. That pretty much accomplishes nothing. (Of course, what I'm talking about isn't debate, but merely an insightful discussion.)

An okay debate to have is the discussion of the possibility of a God in the sense of the supreme creator of the universe. Rational arguments are a good start, but if we really want to know for sure, we'd have to also realize the spiritual aspects of life. Of course, when people do not believe in spirit, it's impossible to do so. So I guess we just be as good as possible while we live and then wait to see what happens when we die.

In sum, I mostly agree that most debates here are counterproductive when concerning religion, but some are acceptable. An argument is not acceptable, but civil discussion or maybe even a debate is good.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/14/2014 6:08:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/14/2014 4:13:04 PM, BradK wrote:
At 8/14/2014 4:06:25 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 8/14/2014 2:40:18 PM, BradK wrote:

you are kind of a one trick pony though. Your 2 arguments consist of (1) repeating patterns need a god to create them and (2) the quran made people go against "their liking" so it was written by god. Which are based on fallacies I'm not going to get into, and you can call me "deluded" all you want or any other word you so choose but I'm still not getting into it. You believe the quran is from god, that's your personal belief, ok great. End of discussion

Response: You mean two tricks that continue to expose the absurdities in your own logic and confirm that the Qur'an is the true word of Allah. Yes, the evidence is clear, so the discussion is over.

you do know that you are the only person who thinks "atheist logic" is absurd right?

Response: You do know that every rational person who understands reason find such a statement amusing right?
Arasa
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2014 5:26:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/14/2014 2:05:12 PM, BradK wrote:
Hello,

I think religious disputes boil down to objectivity vs subjectivity. If something is objective, then it means people have to agree on it. If something is subjective, then it means people can disagree on it.

I think religious debates have no place on a debate website because religious belief is subjective. One guy thinks god is a single entity. Another guy thinks god is 3 persons. Another guy thinks god is just a man made invention. Since religion is subjective, it will ALWAYS be disagreed on. So it has no place on an objective website, right?

I read this and immediately thought "woah woah no no no no no" but let's see if I can respond more intelligently than that...

Objective vs subjective in terms of morality is this:
Objective means that even if everyone on the planet said it was right, it would still be wrong.
Subjective means that whatever the majority says is.

We see that anyone can disagree, even if morals are objective. It does not mean that they are correct.

Hope i didn't sound too rude
August Rasa, a 4:53 mind
BradK
Posts: 475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2014 9:38:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/15/2014 5:26:30 AM, Arasa wrote:
At 8/14/2014 2:05:12 PM, BradK wrote:
Hello,

I think religious disputes boil down to objectivity vs subjectivity. If something is objective, then it means people have to agree on it. If something is subjective, then it means people can disagree on it.

I think religious debates have no place on a debate website because religious belief is subjective. One guy thinks god is a single entity. Another guy thinks god is 3 persons. Another guy thinks god is just a man made invention. Since religion is subjective, it will ALWAYS be disagreed on. So it has no place on an objective website, right?

I read this and immediately thought "woah woah no no no no no" but let's see if I can respond more intelligently than that...

Objective vs subjective in terms of morality is this:
Objective means that even if everyone on the planet said it was right, it would still be wrong.
Subjective means that whatever the majority says is.

We see that anyone can disagree, even if morals are objective. It does not mean that they are correct.


Hope i didn't sound too rude
August Rasa, a 4:53 mind

I'm mostly talking about God's existence being subjective. Do you agree that we have nothing objective to go by to determine God's existence?
Arasa
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2014 9:57:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/15/2014 9:38:51 AM, BradK wrote:
At 8/15/2014 5:26:30 AM, Arasa wrote:
At 8/14/2014 2:05:12 PM, BradK wrote:
Hello,

I think religious disputes boil down to objectivity vs subjectivity. If something is objective, then it means people have to agree on it. If something is subjective, then it means people can disagree on it.

I think religious debates have no place on a debate website because religious belief is subjective. One guy thinks god is a single entity. Another guy thinks god is 3 persons. Another guy thinks god is just a man made invention. Since religion is subjective, it will ALWAYS be disagreed on. So it has no place on an objective website, right?

I read this and immediately thought "woah woah no no no no no" but let's see if I can respond more intelligently than that...

Objective vs subjective in terms of morality is this:
Objective means that even if everyone on the planet said it was right, it would still be wrong.
Subjective means that whatever the majority says is.

We see that anyone can disagree, even if morals are objective. It does not mean that they are correct.


Hope i didn't sound too rude
August Rasa, a 4:53 mind

I'm mostly talking about God's existence being subjective. Do you agree that we have nothing objective to go by to determine God's existence?

haha well by the nature of objectivity, the answer would be the true no matter what people believe, so I would say that God's existence is objective, and that is the objective evidence. You can't see it or believe it, but the objective evidence is there.

Don't take this too seriously. The circular reasoning in my post is self-apparent.

August Rasa, a 4:53 mind
BradK
Posts: 475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2014 10:05:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/15/2014 9:57:02 AM, Arasa wrote:
At 8/15/2014 9:38:51 AM, BradK wrote:
At 8/15/2014 5:26:30 AM, Arasa wrote:
At 8/14/2014 2:05:12 PM, BradK wrote:
Hello,

I think religious disputes boil down to objectivity vs subjectivity. If something is objective, then it means people have to agree on it. If something is subjective, then it means people can disagree on it.

I think religious debates have no place on a debate website because religious belief is subjective. One guy thinks god is a single entity. Another guy thinks god is 3 persons. Another guy thinks god is just a man made invention. Since religion is subjective, it will ALWAYS be disagreed on. So it has no place on an objective website, right?

I read this and immediately thought "woah woah no no no no no" but let's see if I can respond more intelligently than that...

Objective vs subjective in terms of morality is this:
Objective means that even if everyone on the planet said it was right, it would still be wrong.
Subjective means that whatever the majority says is.

We see that anyone can disagree, even if morals are objective. It does not mean that they are correct.


Hope i didn't sound too rude
August Rasa, a 4:53 mind

I'm mostly talking about God's existence being subjective. Do you agree that we have nothing objective to go by to determine God's existence?

haha well by the nature of objectivity, the answer would be the true no matter what people believe, so I would say that God's existence is objective, and that is the objective evidence. You can't see it or believe it, but the objective evidence is there.

Don't take this too seriously. The circular reasoning in my post is self-apparent.

August Rasa, a 4:53 mind

well doesn't the circular argument make god's existence subjective (because the circular argument fallacy means god's existence is not objective)?
Arasa
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2014 10:16:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/15/2014 10:05:39 AM, BradK wrote:
At 8/15/2014 9:57:02 AM, Arasa wrote:
At 8/15/2014 9:38:51 AM, BradK wrote:
At 8/15/2014 5:26:30 AM, Arasa wrote:
At 8/14/2014 2:05:12 PM, BradK wrote:
Hello,

I think religious disputes boil down to objectivity vs subjectivity. If something is objective, then it means people have to agree on it. If something is subjective, then it means people can disagree on it.

I think religious debates have no place on a debate website because religious belief is subjective. One guy thinks god is a single entity. Another guy thinks god is 3 persons. Another guy thinks god is just a man made invention. Since religion is subjective, it will ALWAYS be disagreed on. So it has no place on an objective website, right?

I read this and immediately thought "woah woah no no no no no" but let's see if I can respond more intelligently than that...

Objective vs subjective in terms of morality is this:
Objective means that even if everyone on the planet said it was right, it would still be wrong.
Subjective means that whatever the majority says is.

We see that anyone can disagree, even if morals are objective. It does not mean that they are correct.


Hope i didn't sound too rude
August Rasa, a 4:53 mind

I'm mostly talking about God's existence being subjective. Do you agree that we have nothing objective to go by to determine God's existence?

haha well by the nature of objectivity, the answer would be the true no matter what people believe, so I would say that God's existence is objective, and that is the objective evidence. You can't see it or believe it, but the objective evidence is there.

Don't take this too seriously. The circular reasoning in my post is self-apparent.

August Rasa, a 4:53 mind

well doesn't the circular argument make god's existence subjective (because the circular argument fallacy means god's existence is not objective)?

No, that's not the location of the circular reasoning. It means that you can disagree that God exists, but He does exist objectively. However, you only know that God exists objectively if you believe that He exists. Your belief in His existence does not change His existence at all. He will continue to exist even if you don't believe, but you will only know that He is objective when you believe in him. That's the circular reasoning.

August Rasa, a 4:53 mind
BradK
Posts: 475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2014 10:19:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/15/2014 10:16:07 AM, Arasa wrote:
At 8/15/2014 10:05:39 AM, BradK wrote:
At 8/15/2014 9:57:02 AM, Arasa wrote:
At 8/15/2014 9:38:51 AM, BradK wrote:
At 8/15/2014 5:26:30 AM, Arasa wrote:
At 8/14/2014 2:05:12 PM, BradK wrote:
Hello,

I think religious disputes boil down to objectivity vs subjectivity. If something is objective, then it means people have to agree on it. If something is subjective, then it means people can disagree on it.

I think religious debates have no place on a debate website because religious belief is subjective. One guy thinks god is a single entity. Another guy thinks god is 3 persons. Another guy thinks god is just a man made invention. Since religion is subjective, it will ALWAYS be disagreed on. So it has no place on an objective website, right?

I read this and immediately thought "woah woah no no no no no" but let's see if I can respond more intelligently than that...

Objective vs subjective in terms of morality is this:
Objective means that even if everyone on the planet said it was right, it would still be wrong.
Subjective means that whatever the majority says is.

We see that anyone can disagree, even if morals are objective. It does not mean that they are correct.


Hope i didn't sound too rude
August Rasa, a 4:53 mind

I'm mostly talking about God's existence being subjective. Do you agree that we have nothing objective to go by to determine God's existence?

haha well by the nature of objectivity, the answer would be the true no matter what people believe, so I would say that God's existence is objective, and that is the objective evidence. You can't see it or believe it, but the objective evidence is there.

Don't take this too seriously. The circular reasoning in my post is self-apparent.

August Rasa, a 4:53 mind

well doesn't the circular argument make god's existence subjective (because the circular argument fallacy means god's existence is not objective)?

No, that's not the location of the circular reasoning. It means that you can disagree that God exists, but He does exist objectively. However, you only know that God exists objectively if you believe that He exists. Your belief in His existence does not change His existence at all. He will continue to exist even if you don't believe, but you will only know that He is objective when you believe in him. That's the circular reasoning.

August Rasa, a 4:53 mind

The rebuttal that's been used time and time again against those types of arguments is "if I believe in unicorns, does that mean unicorns exist"? Obviously not. So why is it any different with God? Answer: It isn't. Believing in something doesn't make it true. Evidence that survives skepticism makes something true. What evidence for god is there, that can survive skepticism?
Arasa
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2014 1:34:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/15/2014 10:19:46 AM, BradK wrote:
At 8/15/2014 10:16:07 AM, Arasa wrote:
At 8/15/2014 10:05:39 AM, BradK wrote:
At 8/15/2014 9:57:02 AM, Arasa wrote:
At 8/15/2014 9:38:51 AM, BradK wrote:
At 8/15/2014 5:26:30 AM, Arasa wrote:
At 8/14/2014 2:05:12 PM, BradK wrote:
Hello,

I think religious disputes boil down to objectivity vs subjectivity. If something is objective, then it means people have to agree on it. If something is subjective, then it means people can disagree on it.

I think religious debates have no place on a debate website because religious belief is subjective. One guy thinks god is a single entity. Another guy thinks god is 3 persons. Another guy thinks god is just a man made invention. Since religion is subjective, it will ALWAYS be disagreed on. So it has no place on an objective website, right?

I read this and immediately thought "woah woah no no no no no" but let's see if I can respond more intelligently than that...

Objective vs subjective in terms of morality is this:
Objective means that even if everyone on the planet said it was right, it would still be wrong.
Subjective means that whatever the majority says is.

We see that anyone can disagree, even if morals are objective. It does not mean that they are correct.


Hope i didn't sound too rude
August Rasa, a 4:53 mind

I'm mostly talking about God's existence being subjective. Do you agree that we have nothing objective to go by to determine God's existence?

haha well by the nature of objectivity, the answer would be the true no matter what people believe, so I would say that God's existence is objective, and that is the objective evidence. You can't see it or believe it, but the objective evidence is there.

Don't take this too seriously. The circular reasoning in my post is self-apparent.

August Rasa, a 4:53 mind

well doesn't the circular argument make god's existence subjective (because the circular argument fallacy means god's existence is not objective)?

No, that's not the location of the circular reasoning. It means that you can disagree that God exists, but He does exist objectively. However, you only know that God exists objectively if you believe that He exists. Your belief in His existence does not change His existence at all. He will continue to exist even if you don't believe, but you will only know that He is objective when you believe in him. That's the circular reasoning.

August Rasa, a 4:53 mind

The rebuttal that's been used time and time again against those types of arguments is "if I believe in unicorns, does that mean unicorns exist"? Obviously not. So why is it any different with God? Answer: It isn't. Believing in something doesn't make it true. Evidence that survives skepticism makes something true. What evidence for god is there, that can survive skepticism?

Jesus Christ is the evidence for Christians.

August Rasa, a 4:53 mind
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2014 8:37:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/14/2014 2:05:12 PM, BradK wrote:
If something is objective, then it means people have to agree on it.

Do you consider the shape of the earth to be objective?
BradK
Posts: 475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2014 8:39:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/15/2014 8:37:44 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/14/2014 2:05:12 PM, BradK wrote:
If something is objective, then it means people have to agree on it.

Do you consider the shape of the earth to be objective?

I don't know where you are going with that. We all know what shape the earth is... you could probably just get to the point you want to make.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2014 8:52:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/15/2014 8:39:37 PM, BradK wrote:
At 8/15/2014 8:37:44 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/14/2014 2:05:12 PM, BradK wrote:
If something is objective, then it means people have to agree on it.

Do you consider the shape of the earth to be objective?

I don't know where you are going with that. We all know what shape the earth is... you could probably just get to the point you want to make.

If objective means what you claim it does then there is no such thing. People will believe what ever they want. Google "flat earth society", and you'll see what I mean.

To be objective is to be true independent of what the mind thinks about it.
BradK
Posts: 475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2014 8:57:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/15/2014 8:52:53 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/15/2014 8:39:37 PM, BradK wrote:
At 8/15/2014 8:37:44 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/14/2014 2:05:12 PM, BradK wrote:
If something is objective, then it means people have to agree on it.

Do you consider the shape of the earth to be objective?

I don't know where you are going with that. We all know what shape the earth is... you could probably just get to the point you want to make.

If objective means what you claim it does then there is no such thing. People will believe what ever they want. Google "flat earth society", and you'll see what I mean.

To be objective is to be true independent of what the mind thinks about it.

I don't know if flat earth society is just a troll group or what. If we take this "what shape is the earth example", it's entirely objective. We have evidence. Photos, satellites in orbit. Time zones. It all adds up to a round earth. "What shape is the earth" is a perfect example of an objective question.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2014 9:09:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/15/2014 8:57:35 PM, BradK wrote:
At 8/15/2014 8:52:53 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/15/2014 8:39:37 PM, BradK wrote:
At 8/15/2014 8:37:44 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/14/2014 2:05:12 PM, BradK wrote:
If something is objective, then it means people have to agree on it.

Do you consider the shape of the earth to be objective?

I don't know where you are going with that. We all know what shape the earth is... you could probably just get to the point you want to make.

If objective means what you claim it does then there is no such thing. People will believe what ever they want. Google "flat earth society", and you'll see what I mean.

To be objective is to be true independent of what the mind thinks about it.

I don't know if flat earth society is just a troll group or what. If we take this "what shape is the earth example", it's entirely objective. We have evidence. Photos, satellites in orbit. Time zones. It all adds up to a round earth. "What shape is the earth" is a perfect example of an objective question.

And yet there are still people out there who don't accept it, so your definition of objective does not follow.
BradK
Posts: 475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/15/2014 9:30:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/15/2014 9:09:02 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/15/2014 8:57:35 PM, BradK wrote:
At 8/15/2014 8:52:53 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/15/2014 8:39:37 PM, BradK wrote:
At 8/15/2014 8:37:44 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/14/2014 2:05:12 PM, BradK wrote:
If something is objective, then it means people have to agree on it.

Do you consider the shape of the earth to be objective?

I don't know where you are going with that. We all know what shape the earth is... you could probably just get to the point you want to make.

If objective means what you claim it does then there is no such thing. People will believe what ever they want. Google "flat earth society", and you'll see what I mean.

To be objective is to be true independent of what the mind thinks about it.

I don't know if flat earth society is just a troll group or what. If we take this "what shape is the earth example", it's entirely objective. We have evidence. Photos, satellites in orbit. Time zones. It all adds up to a round earth. "What shape is the earth" is a perfect example of an objective question.

And yet there are still people out there who don't accept it, so your definition of objective does not follow.

my definitions generally need to be modified, i can agree with you there. Obviously all it takes is one blithering idiot who thinks the earth is flat to contradict my definition of objectivity. Implicitly I mean that any mentally sane, mentally capable skeptic has to accept the evidence. But then we get into all sorts of "well where do you draw the line on how sane someone is" or "how do you define 'mentally normal'". I just state definitions and hope people get the general idea. If I ever put in the effort to be thorough it usually ends up being a disproportionate amount of energy spent to the energy required to achieve a task, so I generally refrain from rigorous definitions in internet forums.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/16/2014 3:06:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/14/2014 2:14:32 PM, BradK wrote:
At 8/14/2014 2:08:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/14/2014 2:05:12 PM, BradK wrote:
Hello,

I think religious disputes boil down to objectivity vs subjectivity. If something is objective, then it means people have to agree on it. If something is subjective, then it means people can disagree on it.

I think religious debates have no place on a debate website because religious belief is subjective. One guy thinks god is a single entity. Another guy thinks god is 3 persons. Another guy thinks god is just a man made invention. Since religion is subjective, it by will ALWAYS be disagreed on. So it has no place on an objective website, right?

I wouldn't say this is a website made only for objective claims. We can change our perspective on different subjects that will always subjective but be enlightened by new evidence for believing in a different point of view.

Yeah if something had a 100% objective answer then it wouldn't be up for debate in the first place. Debates need to happen on things where there is disagreement.

I'm not trying to suggest some end-all tool to test whether something needs to be debated or not. I just think that debating god's existence day in and day out is rather useless. People are always going to disagree on that, and a lot of them are indoctrinated to hold their particular belief. Any sensible person agrees that the evolution debate is over for example. I think the god debate is also over, not because we know the answer but because the debate itself is designed to never have an answer.

So:
evolution - has an answer, no need to debate
god's existence - will never be answered, no need to debate

God's existence has been answered as clearly as has the existence of any other imagined but unevidenced concept, (fairies, gremlins, unicorns, etc.). The problem is that most people simply won't accept the answer because they're not looking for truth. They're looking for emotional pacification and won't accept any answers they don't find to be emotionally comforting.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire