- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Did you read the rest of that sentence? I'll put the sentence here for you: "This seems true, value itself is an objective phenomenon, but I don't think it follows that things can be objectively more valuable than other things from that point" That in no way is contradicted by what Oceaneer said. I clearly say that things aren't necessarily objectively more valuable than other things, which is in accordance with Oceaneer's post. I also said "the actual degree of value surely varies depending on who gives the valuing." Obviously I'm aware that the value of things is subjective.
Saying "value itself is an objective phenomenon" and saying "The existence of the concept of value is an objective phenomenon" meant that things are valued, and it's not supposed to be some complicated thing, (in your words, "the "existence of the concept of" ANYTHING is an objective phenomenon") I just said it as a response to Amarel, because those were his words. The reason that I made this obvious point was because it seemed to me that Amarel was saying that human lives might be objectively more valuable than animal lives.
"every time you are exposed for it, you ban whoever exposed you and change your argument."
Every time? Some examples please.
The reason I banned Oceaneer wasn't because he 'exposed me.' It was because he resorted to name calling, and I almost always ban people who resort to name calling.
You have resorted to name calling too ("you delusional fuck"), but I will give you a second chance. Resort to name calling again, misrepresent my statements, or do something else rude and pointless, and I will ban you immediately.
I think you missed what my point was. The existence of the concept of value is an objective phenomenon. Sorry if I made that unclear. If you had read any of my previous posts in this debate you would realize that I'm saying value is subjective. Even if you had looked at the rest of that sentence you would have seen my point.
For your behavior you will be banned from this debate.
"While valuation is a subjective undertaking, value itself is an objective phenomenon. Just as eyesight is an objective phenomenon though seeing is a subjective experience."
This seems true, value itself is an objective phenomenon, but I don't think it follows that things can be objectively more valuable than other things from that point (I'm not really sure if what you said here implied that some things are objectively more valuable than others, so I'm just clarifying here, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you). Value is definitely an actual thing, but the actual degree of value surely varies depending on who gives the valuing, as you said, "valuation is a subjective undertaking."
"Since value is necessary to life, and since the kind of life we are is human, ones own human life is more valuable than animal life. This can subjectively change, but when this changes, the person dies (if not dying to rescue a pet, then suicide after a pets death)."
This is true from the human perspective, but would you agree that from another animal's perspective, they could say the same thing about themselves (if they could talk)? Are we still justified to say that our own human lives are more valuable if that's the case? We would have to put our own opinion higher than that of animals... Is it fair to say that our opinion about what is more valuable is a more valid opinion than that of animals?
It's funny that the bible predicts that people will deny it. This means that when more people start to question it they can claim to have predicted such a thing, and use that claim to defend the bible's validity, but when people aren't questioning the bible, Christians have nothing to worry about. It means that Christains are protected both ways.
Very cheap indeed.
I would say that there is no objective value to life, because life is the only thing that can value life, and it would be circular to say that that gives it objective value. I don't think that objective truths can be derived from subjective opinions.
For that reason I would say that human life has equal objective value to animal life. The objective value of both is zero, if my previous logic is accurate.
As for subjective value, from a human perspective, humans might seem more valuable, but from another specie's perspective, that species would might more valuable. For that reason, I would say that there still is no difference in overall value, subjective or objective, between different forms of conscious entities.
If I were to assume some sort of intrinsic, objective value to conscious life, I'm not sure if I could come up with an argument for why human life would be more valuable than animal life. Things like higher intelligence and empathy don't really cut the mustard for me as I don't see any objective value to those that would make human life more valuable than animal life. Suggestions?
"The brain set up thing you talking about includes atheism , you know right?
Of course it includes atheism, that's why I said "whether or not to believe." Stop putting words into my mouth, and talking about everyone's beliefs or lack of beliefs.
"The more you try to describe a religious person's mind set up the more you describe youself (atheism)."
What on earth are you talking about. I'm not trying to describe what goes on in religious people's minds, I'm just saying that different people have different minds that will do different things. I'll say again, do not put words into my mouth.
"You want to talk about belief indoctrination(involving or denial) and you fail to address the other side convenience sake because that is where your seat is located."
But I don't want to talk about indoctrination, read the debate's description. I edited it a while ago, because everyone was talking about indoctrination, and that is only a small part of the issue. You're putting more words into my mouth. Also I am addressing the other side, in my other debate about whether it's okay for a public school
to put up pro atheism posters, and I'm saying no it's not, for exactly the reason that it qualifies as indoctrination.
"You set up a debate "is religious belief a choice"? then you pretend to play neutral.........when if indeed you desire to do so it would be "is religious belief and atheism a choice"?"
Is religious belief a choice covers all religions, and the lack of belief in any religions. I don't need to say atheism, it's just basically the rejection of religious belief. Atheism comes under the title.
"Some christians(by family tag) became atheists at 7 but isaac newton was christian till death, are trying to imply the 7yrs old had a more liberative , intelligent and open mind(ed) than isaac newton?"
No, what are you talking about. I'm not implying anything, I'm just saying that different people will be convinced by different sides because of the circumstances they are in and the way they are, regardless of which side is correct.
"This debate is over...this stupid shit you doing here....."
I will say the exact same to you, and for your continued dishonesty through misrepresenting what I've said, I will ban you. i suppose that means you won't be able to answer the question I posed you elsewhere in this debate, but I don't think you would have been able to answer it anyways, so bye bye.
You still haven't even come near to refuting the logic. How could I have accepted an answer you never gave? The whole point of that statement is what if the correct answer to the original question is that there is no choice for atheists, and you're trying to refute my logic by ignoring the 'what if' at the beginning. It's a hypothetical question. To answer a 'what if' question you have to begin with an assumption, in this case that there is no choice in becoming an atheist. You can't say mt logic is bad because of the assumption at the start because that's the whole point,it's an assumption which you have to accept to refute the logic. You can't just say that there's a choice and therefore it's not valid, because you have to work from the assumption that there is a choice, and then refute the logic. It's like me saying to you, "If there was no moon, it would be darker at night." You can't just say; "Well there is a moon, so your wrong." That misses the point entirely.
I will ask again then; "Assuming that belief (or lack thereof) is not a choice, then surely this has ramifications for certain things... If there is a God, surely he couldn't blame atheists for not believing in him (because they had no choice) ?"
"Be real and stop assuming, there is a choice.
If you don't intend to make realistic debates then this contributes to nothing just a waste."
I'm allowed to make whatever debate I like, you don't have to participate if you think your time will be wasted.
Okay, I've got some time now:
For your first segment, the part starting at "I didn't put that forward very well," and ending with "about that on my view," fair enough. I suppose I don't have a lot of faith in people either, but I still think it's worth trying to teach them, as at least a few would likely pick it up.
"I'm curious how you might approach that, while still holding to the view that indoctrination more broadly isn't fair or right."
Let me try: I think indoctrination is morally wrong (I don't believe in objective morality (in that sense anyway), so maybe that's a bit hypocritical of me, but I see it as my subjective opinion) and I want to try to avoid it happening. At the same time I also want to 'indoctrinate' people to think critically, to defend them against indoctrination. It's kind of like the problem where people say there's absolutely no possibility of absolute knowledge, it's a bit self contradictory. Thinking about the question more, indoctrination is to teach one to accept (or reject) a belief uncritically, so teaching people to accept beliefs (or reject them) critically would be the opposite of indoctrination. Perhaps the teaching of critical thinking skills is best done along with the teaching of other things - I'll use an example as I'm not sure how to explain it: In a physics/science class, a teacher teaches the class the basic formula: v= d/t. To do this, they don't just show the students the formula, but they carry out a basic experiment - rolling a ball down a slope with a stopwatch or something (technically, this would only give the average velocity (the ball accelerates) from v=d/t, so this is a bad example and now I'm getting sidetracked, but you get my point). They would then be teaching students to accept the belief critically, by testing v=d/t to see if it works, and therefore not indoctrinating them.
With methods like this, I don't think that teaching critical thinking skills counts as indoctrination. I think that the only thing that can be taught without criticism is criticism itself, there's no other way. Maybe you could criticism critical thinking, but that would be circular.
An alternative way to get around this problem is to just say that, according to my moral beliefs, the good of indoctrinating people with critical thinking outweighs the bad of indoctrination itself, although this might lead to the old slippery slope situation, where you could then try to squeeze other things in. Also, for all of my examples, they already use things like rationality, maybe the act of critical thinking is rational itself? I'm kind of batting ideas about here, as you may be able to tell.
"(Basically, my preceding question again...)"
I'll refer you to my preceding answer then.
"I don't believe that society exists"
Could you maybe give a short reason why you think this, I won't debate you on this but it would be interesting to hear your opinion. In what way does society not exist? (You could just link me something if you don't want to explain.
"It isn't necessarily the case that social welfare is only or best achieved through egalitarianism"
I see that egalitarianism isn't necessarily true, I suppose all people aren't equal, and maybe some deserve better opportunities. Perhaps realization of this would benefit society if that's the goal, more efficient allocation of resources?. I think for now, I'll stick with the goal of getting what's best for society, and I realize now that egalitarianism ins't necessarily the path to that. I also acknowledge that there is definitely egoism in what I personally want - for example, I personally value things like scientific exploration, and might rather see that funded more than things that will directly help people. (You might have seen that in my "should we look for aliens" debate.) At the end of the day though, I would (in a hypothetical situation) probably vote for someone who wants to increase net social welfare over someone who wants to fund NASA more, even though I personally might prefer the NASA option.
"It presumes a certain intrinsic value to reason and science that simply doesn't exist. "
Fair enough, I see your point in this paragraph.
"Taking a positive stand for any thing, reason and science included, is to preference that thing relative to other things. That's not egalitarian. It's preferential. And coming from the government, it's indoctrination."
I think I can somewhat refer you to what I said earlier, about teaching critical thinking as a means of evaluating what students are learning in school for why it might not be indoctrination, at least in the way I gave the example of (the v=d/t thing). I see though that it isn't egalitarian, but as I said in the part before this paragraph, I now see why egalitarianism mightn't necessary for social welfare.
"we can practice double standards and refuse people who disagree with us access to the same avenues of action by denying that we're taking them and then faulting them for being oppressive tyrants"
I see that such a thing would be possible, but as you know, I wouldn't want to do that for my personal moral reasons.
I don't want my argument to show for either side, but I'll put it here anyways:
I don't think anyone should call themselves things like conservative or liberal because it immediately implies what their opinions are on everything, and most people tend to sympathize with some of the points from several of the sides. Labeling yourself as something like this instantly makes people form opinions about you which are probably incorrect. The truth is more important than convenience here, even if you have to explain all of your beliefs.
You are neither a conservative or a liberal (same goes for me, and many others), and you shouldn't refer to yourself as either, because people will get the wrong opinion. If people ask, tell them that you don't like to use labels, but are happy to discuss issues on a case by case basis.
Hope this helps. :)