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.
It's on record. No one has actually proved it unreasonable.Haha, no, thats an empty assertion.
Do you mean God?As I previoudly stated, objective requires an objective agent.
Thats not how it works.It's on record. No one has actually proved it unreasonable.
I believe both exist in degrees, but the absolute on the objective end is unfinished. The problem is the terminology. I don't think it's a true/fair dichotomy since morality is qualified as a person in subjective morality, but it is qualified as a thing in objective morality, (specifically a code/set of codes/law). Ironically it requires a Person to write such codes. The main difference is morality doesn't have to prove the factual existence of morality or immorality at all, whereas objective morality does.It sounds like you don't believe that objective morality exists. That, for example, euthanasia is not objectively right or wrong but is a subjective matter. Perhaps you could simply confirm that to save some of us some time arguing for a position that you already hold.
Do you mean myths?Yes, god(s).
By all means please elaborate.Thats not how it works.
I believe both exist in degrees, but the absolute on the objective end is unfinished. The problem is the terminology. I don't think it's a true/fair dichotomy since morality is qualified as a person in subjective morality, but it is qualified as a thing in objective morality, (specifically a code/set of codes/law). Ironically it requires a Person to write such codes. The main difference is morality doesn't have to prove the factual existence of morality or immorality at all, whereas objective morality does.
There are beliefs which we reason upon, and beliefs that are determinations, which determine preferences. I see in the preferences of people and therefore their opinions, the factual evidence of a deliberation that realizes there is a difference between what is moral and immoral. And moreover, I see a predisposition towards trying to do the good, and away from doing any evil. In other words, a reasonable nature grounded in the sanity of belief in a mutual compassion. I see an objective morality, I see God.You are correct. I see something wrong with that. A judgement made by me. An opinion informed by my preferences. I don't believe there is any fact of the matter other than facts about preferences.
I've thought about this for a while. I can't help but see both as moral statements. In other words, to me they're both about someone's beliefs on a moral topic. One statement is worded stronger in the definitive, making it an assertion with the more conviction, but they still both believe and express the same judgment/preference/belief."I believe abortion is morally acceptable in some circumstances."
This is an objectively true statement about my beliefs. But is not a moral statement.
"Abortion is morally acceptable in some circumstances."
This is a moral statement. I don't believe this has an objective true or false truth-value.
Concerning this, you were claiming it's a subjective opinion that you're glad the Astros lost. But how can someone have an opinion that they're glad? Concerning some of my other statements demonstrating that I don't understand the topic, I have no idea what you're referring to so I can't respond nor learn anything from it?If that's the case, then this and some of your other statements demonstrate that you don't really understand the topic of the thread.
By all means please elaborate.
Your reasoning is not mine. I'm a theist. I'm responsible for your education.I'm not responsible for your education.
Your reasoning is not mine. I'm a theist. I'm responsible for your education.
Then why use god(s)?
Respectfully, we're all preaching something.Please dont, I dont apreciate preaching.
And Im well versed in theology.
Thanks for the reply. As an axiomatic proposition, There can be only one Creator of everything that exists. You're probably referring to religions.They are all the same to me.
I've thought about this for a while. I can't help but see both as moral statements.
As for objective true or false truth-value, as in any assertion, I'd have to evaluate their reasoning in which they formed their belief to evaluate it.
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?