Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So why did you mention the human living by means of his ability to think, as a moral fact, when it has nothing to do with morality?
What did I deny?
Your first point and your second point appear to have nothing to do with each other. You lost me on that one bro.
I see, different definition of moral facts. I had thought that you meant something that ought to be done. Thank you for explaining.
So... do Christians have any ethical or moral backstops?No one has a backstop aside from their own best conscience.
Even Christians decide to submit to the morals outlined in the Bible, and that decision is revocable. The deciding conscience sits in the highest seat.
Silly goose; it’s well known why ‘it’ is in them. Empathy is an evolved mechanism that is part of being a successful species.What they can not explain is why its in them.
The point seems to be that you are unable to define the moral backstop you question whether atheist’s possess.If you don't know what a moral and ethical backstop is, you might find it difficult to participate in this thread.
You might find that there are not " different definitions "
The person I was responding to defined it as "a fact relevant to man's life," which differs from the other definitions I found. This alone proves there are multiple definitions, which is why I said what I said in response.
Oh? Could you provide one that is different other than
in choice of words to say the same thing?
Two were given above, a fact relevant to man's life/survival (which is I took from his defining it, more like the facts of a recipe to make a specific cake, if you want to do it certain things have to be done, he calls this a moral fact), and then the definition I referenced but will quote in full "a descriptive moral judgment that is true for all individuals" which describes "an enduring condition of the world but also proscribes what ought to be the case (or what ought not to be the case) in terms of an individual’s behavior."
I do not think either of these definitions are saying the same thing.
Why is wiki not accepted?All you can do? Surely you have the capacity to admit that
thousands of cultures around the world existed at the time
in question, and you simply made it up that only the Jews
were down on child abuse.
Citing wiki and "a friend" only underlines the obvious
falsity of your claim.
Atheists-
You did not refer to some tiny group of people who happen to
be atheists, "philosophers, scientism(ists)?"
You spoke of atheists, again as with world cultures, taking a
tiny slice and pretending it's the whole.
Some of us call that negative stereotyping, and find it to
be a moral fact that it's wrong, immoral.
I don't think the Bible even addresses child abuse. Does it?
The claim that Christianity made child abuse " disliked"
rings hollow, for one, I dont think Jews are Christians,
for another, you again make the claim that all other
cultures thought it was ok..
Now you are tossing in " secular" people worldwide yet more
people to malign.
What Chridtian values you are promoting with such
calumny and falsehood is not clear to me. Perhaps you can explain.
Two were given above, a fact relevant to man's life/survival (which is I took from his defining it, more like the facts of a recipe to make a specific cake, if you want to do it certain things have to be done, he calls this a moral fact), and then the definition I referenced but will quote in full "a descriptive moral judgment that is true for all individuals" which describes "an enduring condition of the world but also proscribes what ought to be the case (or what ought not to be the case) in terms of an individual’s behavior."
I do not think either of these definitions are saying the same thing.
I find that a lot of atheists follow scientism.
Why is wiki not accepted?
I admit I do not know Confucius outlook... just trying to give an opinion.
I find that a lot of atheists follow scientism.
According to the Bible the people in the last days will be secular and some idolaters. And they will invade and trample the holy land and set up the abomination that causes desolation in the holy of holies in the temple. They will be wicked. There will be a new Jezebel...
You might like this article. What are Moral Facts?
Note where it says something about linking morality to reality.
Could you condense "moral fact" to a one line definition?
Not sure how it could get more summarized than what was given, but I'll attempt "a descriptive moral judgment on what is a good or bad knowing choice that is true for all human persons always." Like "breaking the Sabbath is bad" or "praying always is good."
Hmm.
Your examples are not valid. There's no objective
basis. It is a subjective opinion that they apply to anyone.
On the "pain is bad' btw, the reasonable person would
recognize that it is a waste of words to go into how
a little pain warns of danger, quote " no pain no gain",
describe how extreme pain is no fun and quite distracting.
Some of the ten commanents reflect moral facts.
Theft, lies, murder, say.
And reasonable people recognize that moral facts are not
moral absolutes.
Whether they apply to all or not just returns to the whole thing of whether or not Christianity is true for me.
With pain that is not my point, I simply think any existence is good, so there is no such thing as "bad just for existing" as the article you linked said. Nothing whatsoever is bad just for existing.
I agree that moral facts are not moral absolutes.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?