Is morality objective or subjective?

[Dontaskme]

So...you really do know nothing about it?

I was a Christian until like age 7-8...

So you have the knowledge that a "like 7-8 year old" might have, and became an Atheist at the ripe old intellectual age of 8?

I wouldn't boast about that, were I you. But it explains a lot...particularly, your last statement.

Children are very smart I'll have you know. I figured out reality was Nondual at the age of 7/8 might even have been earlier, but all I know is that since that awakening, I've been dead ever since, which is the only way to live life right, you know the Jesus way.

[Immanuel Can]

Oh but there is no difference, God = Allah.

THAT is truly a statement so stupid it needs no refutation. Can't be bothered.

[Immanuel Can]

Children are very smart I'll have you know.

7-8 year olds? Maybe comparatively. Not in absolute terms.

[Dontaskme]

Children are very smart I'll have you know.

7-8 year olds? Maybe comparatively. Not in absolute terms.

Im sorry IC, but in absolute terms, children are very much smarter than you think. They just are, ok.


“Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”

[Atla]

Oh but there is no difference, God = Allah.

THAT is truly a statement so stupid it needs no refutation. Can't be bothered.

See how immersed you are in the Christian pretend-game? You don't even want to snap out of it right now.

But it's more like a children's game, I'm not sure if Allah is entirely pleased with adults doing it..

[Immanuel Can]

children are very much smarter than you think.

Well, you don't know what I think, but let's play along.

Children of 7-8 aren't smart. What they are ready to do is trust. They aren't celebrated for their intellect, but for their ingenuousness.

[Immanuel Can]

See...

What I "see" is that I'm speaking with somebody who knows so little we can't even have a conversation. Not bothering, now.

[Atla]

See...

What I "see" is that I'm speaking with somebody who knows so little we can't even have a conversation. Not bothering, now.

Hmm.. yes.. yes.. I think, in fact, Allah may not be very pleased at all. I know it's been fun, but now you should snap out of it, IC. You're too old for this. Do you want to anger God?

[Immanuel Can]

Hmm..

No content. Not bothering.

[Atla]

Hmm..

No content. Not bothering.

But you're bothering to reply because you remembered the One True God, and now you're a little frightened. Stop fighting the truth and just accept it. It's in your own best interest..

[Dontaskme]

Well, you don't know what I think, but let's play along.

Children of 7-8 aren't smart. What they are ready to do is trust. They aren't celebrated for their intellect, but for their ingenuousness.

Yes, lets play along.

Adult Children trust their Father God, exactly the way Children trust their biological Father and Mother.

Except Adult Children are trusting a non-biological Father God, because they are very intellectually stunted, vulnerable, and mentally challenged, in other words, just plain silly.

[Dontaskme]

Hmm..

No content. Not bothering.

You mean the no content like you're non-biological Father God has, the no content that you are so highly invested and bothered about obsessively.

[Dontaskme]

What I "see" is that I'm speaking with somebody who knows so little we can't even have a conversation. Not bothering, now.

Well, what I see is someone who contradicts themself repeatedly.

Well, you don't know what I think, but let's play along.

[iambiguous]

If somebody says, "The reason you shouldn't murder is that murder is intrinsically, objectively, always wrong," that's one kind of statement. But subjectivism requires any honest subjectivist to say only this: "Murder feels wrong to me...for the moment. So I'm hoping it feels wrong to you. But if it doesn't, I'm not more right than you are, and have no business condemning your murders."

This is how Mr. Cant "pins" the moral subjectivists to the mat. If only "in his head".

But what he avoids over and again [as some point out] is that the Christians are more or less in the same boat.

Okay, they have the Bible to fall back on in regard to murder...to the killing of other human beings.

But until they are able to demonstrate that the Christian God is the one and the only moral font mere mortals can -- must -- take with them all the way to the grave...to immortality and salvation...their God remains just one of many. And then there are all of the many folks who embrace one or another secular/ideological/philosophical equivalent of religion. They too are just as convinced that their own Isms provide them with One True Path to the objective truth.

Then back again to those in Israel and the Gaza Strip who sanction killing the infidels because this is deemed to be "intrinsically, objectively, always" right. Even when in the name of the same God.

Would any subjectivist articulate his view so frankly? Of course not; because if it he did, it would expose subjectivism for the wimpy, useless kind of thing it actually is. So what he has to do instead is imaginatively invest his subjectivism with the authority of an objective truth. Otherwise, it's just powerless to address any situation, no matter how reprehensible or laudable, at all.

Frank? Like me? Yes, "here and now" I have thought myself into believing that objective morality -- God or No God -- does not exist. What Mr. Cant calls "wimpy", however, I call "fractured and fragmented".

But what he will almost certainly never allow himself to acknowledge about his own True Christian font is that, existentially, it reflects but his own largely subjectivist need to anchor his Self in a moral font...that allows him to feel comforted and consoled.

And the Christian God, of course, is powerful enough to address all of his needs. Especially the need to actually believe that as a Christian whenever he is confronted with any new set of circumstances at all he needs to do is to ask himself, "would Jesus find them reprehensible or laudable?"

This way he never really has to think for himself at all. Everything is all Scripted for him in the Bible.

[iambiguous]

A leap of faith to No God? Then back to the part where many insist it is still far more incumbent upon those who believe in God to demonstrate His existence than for those who don't believe in Him to demonstrate that.

I agree.
There seems to be two sides to this story...according to the rather strange beliefs of IC
There's God's side of the story as it is written in a book, and the Human side of the story. Anecdotes and a storybook are not reliable evidence.

IC literally bases his evidence for God on his own constructed story and then bases his whole world view on that. The gullibility, wishful thinking and delusion overrides any rationality and reason as far as I can see.

On the other hand, there is still the part where he seeks to go beyond leaps of faith or wagers or verses from the Bible. The part where he insists that both scientists and historians have in fact effectively demonstrated the existence of the Christian God: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... SjDNeMaRoX

Why on Earth is that not the main focus of his arguments? Why is he fixated on the philosophical -- theoretical -- parameters of objective morality when he claims to have all of this scientific and historical evidence accumulated by Willam Lane Craig...proofs that can bring everyone over to Christ. Evidence that might actually save souls here!

And that is why, even though folks like the Mormons are often ridiculed and caricatured given their own door to door jaunts to save souls -- https://www.google.com/search?q=mormons ... s-wiz-serp -- I've always believed that, surely, with so much at stake on both sides of the grave, why aren't all Christians out there doing the same?