Is morality objective or subjective?

[Harbal]

How's that working out for women these days?

Love is not the same as sex. Are you talking about sex?

So...you're saying you think that sex requires contracts, but love doesn't? Or do you just mean that neither sex nor love require commitment?

Sex requires commitment, but only for its duration, after which men usually transfer their commitment to going to sleep.

[iambiguous]

You haven't read enough. I've suggested multiple resources to people, including David Berlinski's book just a page or two back...

“Has anyone provided proof of God’s inexistence? Not even close. Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close. Have our sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close. Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough. Has rationalism and moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough. Has secularism in the terrible 20th century been a force for good? Not even close, to being close. Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy in the sciences? Close enough. Does anything in the sciences or their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ball park. Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.” David Berlinski

Me, I don't make the claim that religious belief is irrational. And I do not hold in contempt those who do manage to make that existential leap of faith to God. Particularly the more sophisticated leaps of those like Kierkegaard and Pascal and Marcel.

Instead, my own focus revolves more around the extent to which those who do believe are able to actually demonstrate that it is their own God that provides the path to moral Commandments, immortality and salvation.

That and theodicy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... _eruptions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... l_cyclones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tsunamis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landslides
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fires
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... ore_deaths
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_diseases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinction_events

Also, there are others who are considerably less credulous in regard to those like Berlinski:

https://edthemanicstreetpreacher.wordpr ... berlinski/

[Alexis Jacobi]

Me, I don't make the claim that religious belief is irrational. And I do not hold in contempt those who do manage to make that existential leap of faith to God. Particularly the more sophisticated leaps of those like Kierkegaard and Pascal and Marcel.

A word to be considered is theory: to theorize.

[Late Latin theōria, from Greek theōriā, from theōros, spectator : probably theā, a viewing + -oros, seeing (from horān, to see).]

We in our world, we have to take a viewing stance and through what we see and understand organize those ways that we will be in this world.

If you, Iambiguous, would decide to avail yourself of the skyhooks and those amazing intellectual transfer systems that are present and operating, you could then ascend to undreamed of levels!

[iambiguous]

Me, I don't make the claim that religious belief is irrational. And I do not hold in contempt those who do manage to make that existential leap of faith to God. Particularly the more sophisticated leaps of those like Kierkegaard and Pascal and Marcel.

A word to be considered is theory: to theorize.

[Late Latin theōria, from Greek theōriā, from theōros, spectator : probably theā, a viewing + -oros, seeing (from horān, to see).]

We in our world, we have to take a viewing stance and through what we see and understand organize those ways that we will be in this world.

First, let's get back to this:

So, those who see nature as it really is see realistically and maturely when compared to any romantic or mythological view.

On the other hand, there are those who insist there is but one way in which to "see nature". Religiously -- objectively -- as they do.

The Satry Syndrome let's call it. And the equivalent of that here.

It's not whether morality is objective or subjective to this clique/claque. It's whether it is "natural".

And, in regard to things like race and gender and sexual orientation and Jews and liberals and politics, if you are not sure what is natural, they'll tell you.

But, in my view, what they won't tell you [there or here] is what actual policies they would pursue if they were in a position of power in a particular community. Would they go as far as, say, the Nazis? Or perhaps something a bit less draconian?

Or is "theorizing" ever and always the bottom line for you regarding morality?

If you, Iambiguous, would decide to avail yourself of the skyhooks and those amazing intellectual transfer systems that are present and operating, you could then ascend to undreamed of levels!

Come up into the intellectual clouds with you? Become just one more didactic "serious philosopher" pedant here? Another godawful Veritas Aequitas? Another of Will Durant's "epistemologists"?

Thanks, but no thanks.

[Immanuel Can]

Love is not the same as sex. Are you talking about sex?

So...you're saying you think that sex requires contracts, but love doesn't? Or do you just mean that neither sex nor love require commitment?

Sex requires commitment, but only for its duration, after which men usually transfer their commitment to going to sleep.

No cigarette first?

[Harbal]

So...you're saying you think that sex requires contracts, but love doesn't? Or do you just mean that neither sex nor love require commitment?

Sex requires commitment, but only for its duration, after which men usually transfer their commitment to going to sleep.

No cigarette first?

I didn't mention that in case you disapprove of smoking.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Or is "theorizing" ever and always the bottom line for you regarding morality?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑

If you, Iambiguous, would decide to avail yourself of the skyhooks and those amazing intellectual transfer systems that are present and operating, you could then ascend to undreamed of levels!

Come up into the intellectual clouds with you?

Or you could just go yourself. No need for me to hold your hand.

Theory [in the Greek sense] most certainly has a great deal to do with morality.

[Lacewing]

...

You said the sexual revolution wasn't about 'more marriages', and it was never about love.

I disagreed that it wasn't about love, and I said that love doesn't require contracts.

Then you asked: "How's that working out for women these days?" What are you referring to?

[Immanuel Can]

Sex requires commitment, but only for its duration, after which men usually transfer their commitment to going to sleep.

No cigarette first?

I didn't mention that in case you disapprove of smoking.

Nasty hobbit, that.

[Immanuel Can]

You said the sexual revolution wasn't about 'more marriages', and it was never about love.

I disagreed that it wasn't about love, and I said that love doesn't require contracts.

Then you asked: "How's that working out for women these days?" What are you referring to?

Love without commitments.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Since human love between man and woman necessarily involves commitment, relationships without commitment involve eroticism far more than love.

Trust me on this one ….

[Dubious]

Love has tentacles which reach far beyond the genitals...or disregards them altogether. Love cannot exist without commitment. If these are "decided" upon then love is no-longer what it was meant to be but jealousy which demands possession of the person.

[Harbal]

Love has tentacles which reach far beyond the genitals..

It sounds like you're describing an affectionate octopus, and many will be wondering where they might find such a creature.

[Gary Childress]

You said the sexual revolution wasn't about 'more marriages', and it was never about love.

I disagreed that it wasn't about love, and I said that love doesn't require contracts.

Then you asked: "How's that working out for women these days?" What are you referring to?

Love without commitments.

It's called "unconditional love". Contractual love is not for all of us.

[Sculptor]

How's that working out for women these days?

Love is not the same as sex. Are you talking about sex?

So...you're saying you think that sex requires contracts, but love doesn't? Or do you just mean that neither sex nor love require commitment?

Well we all know you would have a problem with unconditional love, since you pretend to love God.
God's love and love for God is all about a contract. tickets to heaven and "good" behaviour.

Until you break away from your fear of death and, your dream of the divine that you think will give you that escape, then you shall never know true love.

Sad puppy