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.
Yes, I'm quite aware of this. I also know the arguments that are commonly used in moral philopsophy for an objective morality and those arguments are not the ones you use. They are quite a bit more sophisticated.That's a common tactic, to try and undermine and discredit the person rather than deal with the content. I have been consistent with what I have said. What you perceive as evidence for non-objective morality is what non-theists use to support objective morality. You are thinking that because they are atheists then they must pushing non-objective morality. But believe it or not, atheists also support objective morality. That's how common the belief is for moral realism.
This is what I am talking about when I say you are hard to debate. You seem to have a stock standard reply which is either "No you are wrong" without any reason why or "you don't understand philosophy". Neither replies address what is being discussed which shows you do not even bother to think about things. For example, you tell me "I simply don't understand philosophy basics" when I wasn't even talking about philosophy. I was talking about logical fallacies and how you made one in your last reply.Heh, no. You simply don't understand the basics of philosophy.
Which ones are more sophisticated mine or the ones normally used for objective morality? What is the usual argument commonly used in moral philosophy for objective morality?Yes, I'm quite aware of this. I also know the arguments that are commonly used in moral philopsophy for an objective morality and those arguments are not the ones you use. They are quite a bit more sophisticated.
No. My statement to Steve was unqualified, and while I will admit that there is a small possibility that the Gospel of John was written by an eyewitness, I see no reason to apologize for my unqualified statement to Steve.
I think you misunderstand me. What I said was that the Gospel of John was the only one with the least likelihood of having been written by an eyewitness. In other words, the Synoptics were not written by eyewitnesses but the Gospel of John might have been.
As I have already explained, my belief in the divine inspiration of scripture would be threatened. Reducing the stories of Genesis to straight factual historical narrative makes them paltry, uninteresting and unworthy of divine authorship.
Not integral, but a reasonable inference.
Adam and Eve as symbolic of the first humans, yes, whatever their actual names might have been. "Adam" and "eve" are punning names as are appropriate for symbolic characters in an etiology.
Like you?
Do you support right-wing politics in your country and use your religious beliefs as justification?
Do you despise, revile and sometimes even attack other Christians who don't support right-wing politics?
That is correct. That is exactly what Trump is doing.
Yes it does. You are thinking like a materialist/physicalist when it comes to morality and philosophical evidence. Evidence for morality is not the same as scientific evidence where an objective can be found and tested. Morality is determined by the way we act/react and what we believe is moral truth. That is the only way we can produce evidence for morality.Yes, the world the world IS is that people ACT like morals are objective.
Acting like something is the case doesn't make it the case.
And once again, acting like there is objective morality doesn't mean there is objective morality.
All I can say is you give very little replies not just to me. So I don't think it is a case of anyone deserving such poor responses.I'm not responisible for your education.
I give the answers you posts deserve.
Again, I'm not responsible for your education or your arguments.Which ones are more sophisticated mine or the ones normally used for objective morality? What is the usual argument commonly used in moral philosophy for objective morality?
No.This is what I am talking about when I say you are hard to debate. You seem to have a stock standard reply which is either "No you are wrong" without any reason why or "you don't understand philosophy". Neither replies address what is being discussed which shows you do not even bother to think about things. For example, you tell me "I simply don't understand philosophy basics" when I wasn't even talking about philosophy. I was talking about logical fallacies and how you made one in your last reply.
A logical fallacy is simple to understand and you don't need a philosophy degree to realize this. In your case, you used a generalization to make a conclusion. IE that because morals vary this must mean subjective morality is true and there are no moral facts. You have not explained why we can conclude that subjective morality means there are no objective moral values.
I have provided support for how it is faulty thinking and you seem to think I am in need of educating. Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black lol.
The case for moral relativism is that different societies have different moral judgments. However, most more complex moral judgments are derived from a few basic ones, with components that vary with the material conditions of different societies. But the fact that different societies make different moral judgments does not prove relativism. To prove their position, relativists must dig down to the fundamental moral judgments in every society, and then show that these judgments are not shared by societies. This they have not done.
Is Morality Objective? | Issue 115 | Philosophy Now
But according to your logic, this would also mean objective morality is true because all societies use certain values necessary to function (for example, no lying, promise-keeping, nurturing children).
What are you talking about? Do you mean the evidence to show objective morality exists based on naturalism such as human wellbeing, natural laws of evolution, etc? Or that these ideas can be used by subjectivists to reason what is right and wrong morally. Which is more or less the same things.It doesn't matter what you call it. The fact is that you have utterly and completely failed to discredit that evidence. I expect you will claim to have done so several times, but I have followed this thread fairly closely and have seen nothing from you in that regard but empty assertions and the knocking down of straw men.
So you have run out of evidence or constructive things to say so your now attacking me personally. Your entire approach to arguing is just wrong. The right thing to do would have been to ask a person first what they mean by what they have quoted rather than assuming things. You don't know me or the reasoning behind why I posted that.The truth is inconvenient sometimes.
Also - "Science is getting closer and closer to the very core of existence. The closer they get the more they will see that there had to be a creator." - is a very ignorant quote. Science cannot deal with the supernatural.
Where in the quote have I attacked you personally?So you have run out of evidence or constructive things to say so your now attacking me personally. Your entire approach to arguing is just wrong. The right thing to do would have been to ask a person first what they mean by what they have quoted rather than assuming things. You don't know me or the reasoning behind why I posted that.
But what I have noticed is that I got more out of you by playing your yes and no game than anything else which is good.
Why should they be? The authors make no claim that they were eyewitness and Luke is quite explicit that he was not.1. Why are the Synoptics not eye witnessed?
It is beginning to seem as if you are deliberately misunderstanding me. What I am trying to convey to you is this:2. If Genesis is not factual history and unworthy of Divine Authorship, what is it then to you?
The first humans.4. What are adam and eve symbolic of?
What I mean is evidence that morality (whether you define it as "objective" or not) can be based on naturalism such as human wellbeing, natural laws of evolution, etc.What are you talking about? Do you mean the evidence to show objective morality exists based on naturalism such as human wellbeing, natural laws of evolution, etc? Or that these ideas can be used by subjectivists to reason what is right and wrong morally. Which is more or less the same things.
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?