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.
No, I rejected objective as a meaningful term.
Ok.And yet you specifically gave an example of something that cannot be objective? (Namely, "A subject experiencing something"?)
I can't help but agree with @stevevw. You are prone to assertive, insubstantial posts that are inimical to dialogue. The change is unfortunate. In the past I have seen posts of substance from you.
This is a good article. I have used this one on this thread myself to show non-theistic support for objective morality. But I am not sure why you posted it as though it lends support for there being objective moral values it still more or less supports a naturalistic basis for them.
The thing I think is unfair is that I do know about philosophy and ethics. I have studied it perhaps not as extensive as you in that I assume you have done a specific course in philosophy but it has been a big part of my studies in social welfare work. I also do extensive reading with these debates as I like to understand things better. I don't just talk off the top of my head but want to give informed responses.I have not said that anything is ”subjective”.
Heh, ok.The thing I think is unfair is that I do know about philosophy and ethics. I have studied it perhaps not as extensive as you in that I assume you have done a specific course in philosophy but it has been a big part of my studies in social welfare work. I also do extensive reading with these debates as I like to understand things better. I don't just talk off the top of my head but want to give informed responses.
But you make out that I know nothing like some moron which is far from the truth. I think it is unreasonable that you make out I know absolutely nothing when I have articulated some level of understanding.
You say that I want to prop up my beliefs by only supporting certain ideas that will support my beliefs but that is not entirely true. Yes, our personal beliefs and experiences do influence our worldview but my arguments have not been blindly claimed but reasoned. I could say the same for you in that you don't want to engage in debating the content and offer reasoned replies because you are set in your beliefs and dismiss all else.
Now you are on record as admitting non-theistic objective morality is possible. Your moral argument for God is in the trash where it belongs and can no longer be an embarrassment to faithful Christians.This is a good article. I have used this one on this thread myself to show non-theistic support for objective morality. But I am not sure why you posted it as though it lends support for there being objective moral values it still more or less supports a naturalistic basis for them.
In fact, it more or less supports what I have been saying that our lived moral experience shows there are epistemic and moral values which are real and truthful in the way we appeal to them and use them whether we support subjective morality or not. Certain values have a worth to them that stands on their own through reason and logic for bringing about good and order.
I think you will find that I said non-objective morality is possible according to atheists. I said that to show even atheists think there must be objective morals as that is what lived moral experience shows us. Even they cannot deny this.Now you are on record as admitting non-theistic objective morality is possible. Your moral argument for God is in the trash where it belongs and can no longer be an embarrassment to faithful Christians.
What you actually said which caught my attention is this:I think you will find that I said non-objective morality is possible according to atheists. I said that to show even atheists think there must be objective morals as that is what lived moral experience shows us. Even they cannot deny this.
It's not. And I have never argued against the existence of objective morality. It is your lame attempt to show there are objective morals as a proof for God which is embarrassing.But let's say I did say that. Are you saying my word provides greater evidence than the evidence I just posted? So you are using a logical fallacy anyway to support your objection.
I am interested in why you think that if there are objective morals it is an embarrassment to faithful Christians.
But I just accounted for it in my last post. The article was trying to make out there is some special way to know objective morals without God and without appealing to naturalistic objective morality. But it has done no such thing. It merely is using a fancier way of using naturalistic processes to account for objective morality.What you actually said which caught my attention is this:
"But I am not sure why you posted it as though it lends support for there being objective moral values it still more or less supports a naturalistic basis for them."
In the case of the article I linked to, a naturalistic basis which you have failed to account for.
Who said anything about trying to prove God through objective morality. All I have been doing is trying to prove that there is objective morality. That has taken up and preoccupied my entire attention let alone prove God. And besides, if you say you support objective morality then why didn't you back what I was saying. It would have made it easier to have someone else who supports objective morality.It's not. And I have never argued against the existence of objective morality. It is your lame attempt to show there are objective morals as proof for God which is embarrassing.
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?