Total posts: 2,481
-->
@3RU7AL
but that standard is unknown and or unknowable
In regards to me, yes.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
No, it's the definition. Look it up.
Definition of what? You seemed to claim conflate sociopaths with immorality and I’m asking you is that an opinion or a fact?
That has nothing to do with anything I've said.
Actually it does because you said you need a mind for truth, but theres a creator of the first mind and the truth value in that proves that truth existed before minds.
Truth pertains to a claim being made.
No, truth pertains to reality (which I alluded to before) whether or not someone says something about it has no bearing.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
how do we know what "god" wants ?
I don’t know.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
which is a silly question
What about that question is silly?
It is your perogative to not care about other people, but if that's the case then you are a sociopath so discussing morality with you is a waste of time.
Is that another “opinion” your expressing because opinions in debates is the literal example of a waste of time.
Truth is an assessment. There is no way around that.
But there’s truth pertaining to the creator of the first mind.
A lack of knowledge does not change the fact that an assessment is being made nor does it impact the truth value of the assessment being made.
Yes it does, it’s called an untruthful assessment.
Created:
-->
@Shila
This implies common sense is not subjective opinions therefore it must be objective opinions.
No, it implies it must be objective fact.
Created:
-->
@Shila
How does common sense become objective opinions?
They don’t.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
The first is me explaining that "well being" by itself is neither true or false because it's not a claim
No, but saying we should all value it is.
Regarding the second sentence, you asked me whether it is obviously true that we should care about other people and I replied "it is to me". That is a very simple way of saying it is in my subjective opinion. English 101.
But you didn’t just say “it is to me” you said “Does that really need explaining?” As if it’s such an objective common sense notion that the question shouldn’t even be asked in the first place meaning you expected that notion from me, but that expectation should be in regards to objective facts not subjective opinions, subjective opinions have nothing to do with common sense.
reality says otherwise
Which is what truth is in regards to, not an assessment an ignorant mind makes (e.g. the earth is flat) like you said before.
Created:
-->
@K_Michael
@Shila
Your non-committal position and generalization was not helpful.
K_Michael’s error wasn’t helpful, and I resent that notion of me.
Created:
-->
@K_Michael
If the Bible isn't the word of God, then what indication do you have that He agrees with it?
I never said The Bible was or wasn’t the word of God, I simply made a general statement.
Created:
-->
@K_Michael
Either the Bible (or whatever informs your flavor of religion) has clear instructions on how you should live your life and you don't get to decide for yourself, or the Bible isn't the word of God.
You can agree with something without it being your word.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
so, FUNCTIONALLY each person needs to figure out FOR THEMSELVES what they believe is "right" and what is "wrong" ?
Yes, if what they believe aligns with God.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
I choose well being as my standard because that’s what I value.
Why?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Well being is not a truth statement, it is simply the thing I have chosen to judge actions against.
But that just begs the question as to why you chose well being as a standard if you didn’t believe that standard to be a true standard?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I cannot read your mind princess.
No? But you can read other things I say right? Well if you read from the beginning you would know the context.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
That's correct. As was my answer.
What answer? You still haven’t answered my question
what was the reasoning behind the question?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Logic has nothing to do with where you begin
It does if your asserting the beginning to be true, so when I said
But objective facts are right, a subjective opinion is neither right or wrong.
That was in reference to the beginning not the conclusion drawn from it.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
so how does "objective morality" help me get to heaven ?how does "objective morality" help me make practical decisions ?
I don’t know
Created:
-->
@Stephen
It matters not to me what YOUR OWN reasoning was. You asked a simple and clear enough question. Why you insist on this pointless merry-go- round over something that you invoked only you know.
It’s not a pointless merry-go round, contextually speaking it’s a simple and clear enough question, you have no problem attempting to answer questions not directed toward you so how about you answer one that is
what was the reasoning behind the question?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
So what would be an example of something that’s not influenced by personal feelings or opinions? The shape of the earth.
And what happens when someone else dies (the “essence” of what morality is predicated on).
Meaningless statement. You’re talking to an atheist.
I’ve always had been, still hasn’t stopped you from making the “even if God did exist” argument multiple times before.
The idea that god has some kind of different mind is purely made up and devoid of any meaning.
Your arguments toward God are based on a regular human standard when God is by definition superhuman.
I never took the position that something subjective can’t be taught, that was your argument.
And yours was and I quote
you cannot demonstrate it
Literally the same difference.
I showed how morality despite being subjective can be taught (because it is objective from the standpoint of the standard).
Making consistent arguments within a given standard doesn’t justify the logic behind the standard itself (all circles back to when I said subjective morality doesn’t make sense because you still have to justify that starting point) and if the standard is subjective it can’t be taught like I said before.
I’ve explained this multiple times already. It’s not an absolute. It *depends* on where we are starting from. This is not complicated.
We start with God, so any deviation is logically inconsistent because He created the standard and us.
If we are starting from the standpoint of a particular standard, morality is objectively discernible from that point.
Discerning objectivity from any particular starting point doesn’t necessarily make that starting point moral (I said something similar in an upper paragraph) only God can be the judge of that.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
how do you get to heaven ?
I don’t know
Created:
-->
@Stephen
And there was a reason I answered it.
Well answer this, what was the reasoning behind the question?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
You have asked, what is God to be jealous of? >>>#614 I have shown you here>>> Exodus 34:14" Do not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God".That is the answer to your question. It is irrelevant if or not I am an atheist. And it matters not how long you wish to drag out this simple BIBLICAL fact, the answer will remain the same.
You really need to work on your reading comprehension dude, there’s a reason why I asked that question.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
so "objective morality" means "trust the jesus to get you into heaven and forgive all your sins"and then do whatever you wish whenever you wish
No
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Objectivity isn’t referring to the judging of anything
It literally said (of a person or their judgment) in the definition.
The earth’s existence, and the shape it exists within, does not require and is not dependent on a mind.
It requires God who created it.
You cannot point to it, you cannot actualize it, you cannot demonstrate it. Morality, even your conception of it, is entirely the product of a mind.
Not sure if the dictionary would take a religious position but I don’t think they had God in “mind” when they included that in the definition because our mind shouldn’t be compared to His. Lastly it seems like your backpedaling from your previous argument because before I said a subjective opinion can’t be taught and now your saying subjective morality can’t be demonstrated, which is basically the same thing.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
what is the OBJECTIVE that "morality" leads to ?
Heaven
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
@Double_R
"judgement calls" ARE BY DEFINITION SUBJECTIVE
I guess you haven’t been following Double_R and I discussion but the definition of objective is
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Keyword JUDGEMENT.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
"objective morality" doesn't have any room for "judgement calls"
Interesting how you say things like
i want to know what is right and what is wrong
and in the next breath say
"objective morality" doesn't have any room for "judgement calls"
You either know or you don’t.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
so i can't have "objective morality" and also KNOW WHAT THE RULES ARE ?
That’s not the same as calling the rules impractical, that judgement call is based off knowing.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
@Shila
And it is beside the point whether I am an atheist or not.
Originally the jealous discussion didn’t even involve you so I’m not sure you know what the point even is, or why Shila brought it up. When I asked what is He jealous of I was asking in the context of the atheists perspective since that is what was talked about but you would know that if you were following along closely rather than joining late and acting like you know more than the parties involved.
Created:
-->
@Shila
That includes all gods including the jealous God in the Bible.
Now define jealous.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
So you are now confusing the essence of an objective statement with the processing and recognition of the statement itself.
No, they’re both demonstrating objectivity hence why in the definition it said (of a person or their judgment) meaning you can judge objectively but you can’t do it without a keyword mind, which is exactly what God did when He defined morality (I love how you only want to use definitions when you think it suits your narrative). Lastly objectivity doesn’t necessarily have to come in the form of a statement.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
because i'm trying to figure outwhy it matters if morality is "objective"in practical terms
Can’t have it both ways dude.
Created:
-->
@Shila
All gods are applicable to atheists. That includes the jealous God in the Bible.
Define atheist Shi.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Regardless.
There’s no regardless, context matters bro.
Created:
-->
@Shila
By following His commandments reassured Him he was being loved and respected. That made Him less jealous.
Jealous of what?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
“Not influenced by personal feelings” does not conflict with “being independent of the mind”. In fact the former is necessarily entailed in the latter;
Well if you actually read the whole post you would notice I put emphasis on
because you can’t consider and represent facts without a keyword MIND.
Created:
-->
@Shila
He must be jealous of everything. That is why He gave the Jews 613 commandments to follow.
A commandment doesn’t necessarily equate to jealousy.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Other gods. Exodus 34:14
Other Gods aren’t applicable to atheists.
Created:
-->
@Shila
For the Lord your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God.
What is He jealous of?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
i'm asking if "objective morality" can be applied to the real-world
Why are you asking me this?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
you're the one claiming morality is "objective"
And you’re the one conflating complexity with uselessness, are you asking a question or making a claim?
Created:
-->
@Double_R
A choice is made by a mind, which makes it by definition, subjective.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
i want to know what is right and what is wrong
By projecting so much your basically claiming to already know.
Created:
-->
@Shila
But there is punishment for rejecting God.
Why is there punishment?
Created:
-->
@Shila
Being foolish is not immoral.
Seriously dude why do you keep saying this? When did I ever conflate the two?
Created:
-->
@Shila
So you’re not gonna actually engage with the whole scripture? You’re just repeating yourself over and over again.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
I would think quoting scripture in a random, haphazard way would be what appears inconsistent.
Psalms 14 and 53, and Rom 3:10–12 isn’t random haphazard.
There are two billion Christians, are you saying they all act morally, or are you saying that only the ones who act morally are actually Christians?
Your not slick, you don’t get to make claims and pose them off as questions.
There are people who believe that in practically every different religion, so that isn’t really an answer.
And like I said earlier you can’t make a claim and pose them off as a question.
How about Buddhists, they don’t believe in a God, are you saying no Buddhist is moral?
I already told you I’m no religion expert and by the looks of it neither are you, my question to you is why do you claim to be a theist?
Created:
-->
@Shila
But the crowd wanted Jesus crucified for blasphemy.
The crowd was foolish.
Created:
-->
@Shila
So he was just a fool.
No
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
Yeah, and that bothers you?
Yes, because it makes your argument appear inconsistent.
So Christians who act immorally aren't Christians?
That question makes no sense, you can’t be something that your not.
How about Muslims, they believe in God, if a Muslim acts morally, are they moral?
I’m no religion expert but some believe that God only acknowledges one religion as correct so there’s that.
Created: