The problem of Objective Morality. and why even biblical speaking it is subjective

[Eight Foot Manchild]

No, evolution requires major changes in morphology.

No, it doesn't 'require' any such thing.

I learned what evolution actually is in junior college. What's your excuse for not knowing?

Yes, it is the Big Bang Theory. That is one of the conclusions of the theory.

No it isn't. That is false, and you have already been corrected on this canard earlier in this same thread. Big Bang cosmology describes the earliest known conditions, initial expansion, and early evolution of the universe. That's all. It has no 'conclusions' at all about anything pre-Planck time.

 

[quatona]

I just said that I don't claim to know what you think.

Ok then: Since we don´t know what the others think, and since we don´t know what we ourselves think, maybe we should shut up altogether.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I'm not saying that I know for a fact what is in your head.

Then you agree that the assertion, as stated, necessarily fails. Consequently, if the assertion is derived from Romans 1 (which this kind of apologetic almost always is), then either the interpretation is wrong, or the Bible itself is wrong.

 

[Strathos]

Then you agree that the assertion, as stated, necessarily fails. Consequently, if the assertion is derived from Romans 1 (which this kind of apologetic almost always is), then either the interpretation is wrong, or the Bible itself is wrong.

Or you are wrong...

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Or you are wrong...

Nope. I am not wrong about the assertion being necessarily false, as stated. Your watered-down version has the possibility of being true, but that's irrelevant, and you're still in no position to know anything about that, in any case.

 

[durangodawood]

Wow, a lot of mind-reading on display in this thread.

 

[Strathos]

Nope. I am not wrong about the assertion being necessarily false, as stated. Your watered-down version has the possibility of being true, but that's irrelevant, and you're still in no position to know anything about that, in any case.

All I'm saying is that you cannot be as certain about your own thoughts as you claim. None of us can.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

All I'm saying is that you cannot be as certain about your own thoughts as you claim. None of us can.

I am infinitely more certain of them than anyone else ever will be, which is the only relevant point to the assertion I was responding to.

I hope we've all learned a valuable lesson - don't predicate your crappy apologetics on information you have no access to.

 

[Ken-1122]

All I'm saying is that you cannot be as certain about your own thoughts as you claim. None of us can.

Speak for yourself; I am absolutely certain of my own thoughts. If you disagree, I challenge you to prove me wrong.

 

[Ken-1122]

No, evolution requires major changes in morphology. A change in the gene pool does not do that. Unless you can provide an example of an actual body structure change. None of your examples have that. Try again.

You are wrong. I’ve provided countless definitions of Evolution; none of them claiming morphology is required; all of them claiming a change in gene pool is evolution. If you are going to disagree with the definitions I provided, provide a definition that supports your claim that morphology is required in order for evolution to take place.
Sorry but redefining terms to mean something they do not, and building an argument around the your incorrect use of the term that supports your agenda does not work.

Yes, it is the Big Bang Theory. That is one of the conclusions of the theory.

No; the Big Bang theory starts with the singularity. It says the Universe AS WE KNOW IT started with the singularity. It doesn’t claim anything before the singularity, what caused it, or make any claim on IF it was caused or not. They just don't know.
What Is the Big Bang Theory?

Huh? As a biologist I do much of my own research of scientific reports, as well as reading the research of others.

So if there is all of this proof that dispels evolution (as you claim) why do you suppose nobody has bothered to prove it wrong? And since you are a biologist (as you claim) why don’t YOU prove it wrong?

Well he is just probably the most well known atheist scientist.

He is also not here to defend himself; so when you claim he said this or that, I am skeptical if he really said it, or if you are misquoting him. Whatever the case you quoting him does nothing for our conversation.

 

[Strathos]

I am infinitely more certain of them than anyone else ever will be, which is the only relevant point to the assertion I was responding to.

I hope we've all learned a valuable lesson - don't predicate your crappy apologetics on information you have no access to.

Speak for yourself; I am absolutely certain of my own thoughts. If you disagree, I challenge you to prove me wrong.

Go get a thorough psychiatric evaluation. You'll discover things about your own mind you never knew before.

 

[Ken-1122]

Go get a thorough psychiatric evaluation. You'll discover things about your own mind you never knew before.

No need to. I know my thoughts; you don't.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Go get a thorough psychiatric evaluation. You'll discover things about your own mind you never knew before.

Not that it's remotely relevant to the point, but I've already done that.

Long as we're dispensing advice though, you should try not utilizing extremely crappy apologetics.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
True, but if most humans agree on something it most likely means it is part of their nature. So these morals are part of our human nature.

ken: And that nature is in a constant state of change.

No, human nature has not changed since basically our origin, otherwise we would no longer be human. And those morals that I mentioned have not changed in all of human existence.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
He does live by the morals we do because we are created in His image. We are commanded to live by His objective moral law based on His objective moral character.

ken: Morality is not defined as living according to your Gods moral character.

True, but good morals is. You can have a good morality or a bad morality. If you live by God's morality then you are morally good, otherwise you are not good.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, it says in verse 14 that he is not to treat her brutally, plainly rape is brutal so that is forbidden. He could be reported by either family members or servants to the elders and they would take him before the judge.

ken: In his house, the kidnapper decides what is brutal treatment, or what is rape; and his servants or children are not going to go against him in defense of his victim.

How do you know? There are many cases where children have reported their parents crimes especially adult children. Most humans recognize brutal treatment. There could also be witnesses that are not members of the family. Someone could hear her screaming next door and etc.

ken: The fact that he was allowed and encouraged to kidnap is wrong and how dare you try to defend it.

She was not kidnapped, she was a POW in a war against a very evil nation that treated women and children like dirt. Once she saw the much more civilized Hebrews and lived with them she most likely would have eventually become glad she was captured. This happened in Japan during WW II quite often, they were shocked how well the US treated its POWs and came to admire America greatly.

ken: If the Muslims were doing this today I’ll bet you would be the first to point your finger, but because it is done by YOUR team, you look the other way or worse yet; try to defend it. Shame on you!

Actually devout Muslims DO rape women and unlike the bible, the Koran actually DOES condone it. But as I have shown nowhere in the text does it condone rape, in fact it condemns it, the verse said the man is commanded to NOT treat her brutally. How many times do I have to repeat this to get past your hatred of God and His laws for His ancient people?

Ed1wolf said: ↑
You admitted that morality is subjective which means that it is not real or actually right or wrong it is all just subjective preference based on feelings.

ken: Are feelings real? If so, then morality based on feelings are just as real.

Yes feelings are real but you dont always know what is causing them it could be indigestion, hormones, drugs, or etc. and may not have anything to do with morality. So the feeling you are doing the right thing could be just because you ate something bad that day or a hormonal fluctuation.

 

[quatona]

Yes feelings are real but you dont always know what is causing them it could be indigestion, hormones, drugs, or etc. and may not have anything to do with morality. So the feeling you are doing the right thing could be just because you ate something bad that day or a hormonal fluctuation.

I guess that´s exactly why we call them "subjective" and not "not real".

 

[Ken-1122]

No, human nature has not changed since basically our origin, otherwise we would no longer be human. And those morals that I mentioned have not changed in all of human existence.

I disagree. When humans act against their nature, it changes. Example; it used to be human nature to separate ourselves according to race, but years of vilifying the practice has now changed it so race mixing is natural

True, but good morals is. You can have a good morality or a bad morality. If you live by God's morality then you are morally good, otherwise you are not good.

That only applies to those who agree with your God’s morals. If you disagree with his morals, living according to your Gods morals is probably bad

How do you know? There are many cases where children have reported their parents crimes especially adult children. Most humans recognize brutal treatment. There could also be witnesses that are not members of the family. Someone could hear her screaming next door and etc.

Children of today report on their parents because they have been empowered to do so. In that day, children were not empowered that way. If nobody cared of her screaming when she was being dragged from her home, nobody is going to care when she is screaming while being beaten for being a lousy wife

She was not kidnapped, she was a POW in a war against a very evil nation that treated women and children like dirt. Once she saw the much more civilized Hebrews and lived with them she most likely would have eventually become glad she was captured. This happened in Japan during WW II quite often, they were shocked how well the US treated its POWs and came to admire America greatly.

POW’s are taken from the battel field. These women were dragged from their homes. They had no choice in the matter; that was wrong.

Actually devout Muslims DO rape women and unlike the bible, the Koran actually DOES condone it. But as I have shown nowhere in the text does it condone rape, in fact it condemns it, the verse said the man is commanded to NOT treat her brutally. How many times do I have to repeat this to get past your hatred of God and His laws for His ancient people?

Not only is the instance we are discussing rape, but Numbers 32:18 describes rape as well in the Bible. It basically tells them to kill all the women who are not virgins, but the virgins you can keep for yourselves.

Yes feelings are real but you dont always know what is causing them it could be indigestion, hormones, drugs, or etc. and may not have anything to do with morality. So the feeling you are doing the right thing could be just because you ate something bad that day or a hormonal fluctuation.

I know the difference between emotional pain vs physical pain.

 

[Ed1wolf]

If morality were objective (which is what he is claiming) everybody would define it the same way.

No, see Strathos post, he refuted you.

 

[Ed1wolf]

No moral philosophy is perfect, but one thing about secular morality that I know for sure - holding to it has never once required me to become an apologist for slavery, rape, or genocide.

As I have demonstrated to Ken, with biblical Christian morality it has never once required me to be an apologist for those things either. I have just had to correct shallow and out of context interpretations of the bible by apologists for atheism. And the big difference between secular morality and Christian morality is that secular morality has no objectively rational basis for condemning those things, while Christian morality does.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

As I have demonstrated to Ken, with biblical Christian morality it has never once required me to be an apologist for those things either. I have just had to correct shallow and out of context interpretations of the bible by apologists for atheism.

Yeah, I've seen apologists spend a great deal of time and energy trying to reason that Biblical rape isn't really rape, Biblical slavery isn't really slavery, and Biblical genocide isn't really genocide. I find your reasoning thoroughly unconvincing, and I'm glad I've never had to do such a thing.

And the big difference between secular morality and Christian morality is that secular morality has no objectively rational basis for condemning those things, while Christian morality does.

No it doesn't. Moral decrees do not magically become 'objective' by virtue of having been decreed by a god. Which is to say nothing of the fact that you have no reliable means of gleaning what those decrees are, or that they were made in the first place, or even that a god would necessarily have our best interest in mind when making such decrees.

A moral philosophy that is ontologically and epistemologically vacuous, and makes atrocity apologists out of its followers, is one that I dismiss out of hand.

 

[Ken-1122]

No, see Strathos post, he refuted you.

No; I don’t need to get a psychiatric evaluation to make my case, just as everybody agrees on the effects of gravity, 1+1=2 using math, and everything else objective; if morality were objective everybody would agree on the objective moral issues. If you disagree, point to something else objective that cannot be demonstrated as true.