Is morality objective or subjective?

[iambiguous]

I was conversing with Yahweh yesterday, as is our custom, and suggested to Him that there are new theories, with genetic studies data support, concerning a Common Ancestor of all forms of life. “Nonsense!” he said. “I created life in stages over a series of days. And it culminated with my Crown Achievement: the Original Mating Pair!”

No, seriously, after Yahweh plucked the original mating pair out of thin air, why did He feel it was necessary to give them penises and vaginas? Why make reproduction all about sex? About copulation. Incest to begin with, of course, but we all know just how tumultuous discussions of human sexuality have become of late. And then the part where He anchored the libido in the most primitive part of the brain...all but guaranteeing turbulent conflicts.

That's the best He could come up with?

[Immanuel Can]

Is that why you find it particularly galling when science undermines or contradicts the Bible?

What makes you think either is true...that "science undermines the Bible," or that it "galls" me when you think it does?

[Sculptor]

Is that why you find it particularly galling when science undermines or contradicts the Bible?

What makes you think either is true...that "science undermines the Bible," or that it "galls" me when you think it does?

[Harbal]

Is that why you find it particularly galling when science undermines or contradicts the Bible?

What makes you think either is true...that "science undermines the Bible," or that it "galls" me when you think it does?

I do apologise; I can't imagine what made me say that.

[Alexis Jacobi]

He doesn't seem to have thought of the theological implications of Evolutionism as it applies to humans.

For the sake of coherency in the reference to him, and your opinion of his 'faults', would you kindly explain what are the theological implications of evolution. He uses, and therefore I use, the word evolution. Not evolutionism.

He says that evolution is God's tool. Why is this problematic and faulty?

Myself, I think that you do not grasp what he has done. It is by my definitions a *manoeuvre*. He obviously cannot accept the Genesis picture and regard it as real. (Though he might regard it as suggestive and allusive). So he seems only to focus on the figure of the incarnated God, Jesus. He seems, then, to dismiss the *story* that led up to the Advent of Jesus as being, perhaps, the *darkening glass* St Paul speaks of.

So he becomes a sort of Jesusonian. There are so many avenues that open when a man has that perspective. I imagine it to be theologically freeing.

I actually did look for some clarifying statements of how he viewed both Judaism and Christianity in their more orthodox elements, but found nothing.

So, he becomes a Kierkegaardian Christian, and to get there he had ... to leap.

[Harbal]

He doesn't seem to have thought of the theological implications of Evolutionism as it applies to humans.

For the sake of coherency in the reference to him, and your opinion of his 'faults', would you kindly explain what are the theological implications of evolution. He uses, and therefore I use, the word evolution. Not evolutionism.

He says that evolution is God's tool. Why is this problematic and faulty?

Myself, I think that you do not grasp what he has done. It is by my definitions a *manoeuvre*. He obviously cannot accept the Genesis picture and regard it as real. (Though he might regard it as suggestive and allusive). So he seems only to focus on the figure of the incarnated God, Jesus. He seems, then, to dismiss the *story* that led up to the Advent of Jesus as being, perhaps, the *darkening glass* St Paul speaks of.

So he becomes a sort of Jesusonian. There are so many avenues that open when a man has that perspective. I imagine it to be theologically freeing.

I actually did look for some clarifying statements of how he viewed both Judaism and Christianity in their more orthodox elements, but found nothing.

So, he becomes a Kierkegaardian Christian, and to get there he had ... to leap.

He sounds like one of those Christians I mentioned earlier, and hoped I was right.

[Dubious]

We're still operating under an assumption that Materialism gives us absolutely no reason to make: that the world is governed by laws and rationality, and that human beings can, with the right method, reliably 'decode' its secrets. That's science.

But here's the key: that assumption, that when we think in a disciplined way, that reality will yield its secrets, is only an assumption until proved. It had to be presupposed before anyone could even think that a thing like science could be done. So until people believed -- prior to science itself -- that they could expect the world to be governed by rationality and themselves to be reliably connected to that reality, science remained unthinkable.

The supposed link between Materialism and science is actually very new, and a post-Enlightenment phenomenon. But Materialism would give us reason only to expect a chaotic reality, and no reason to suppose that there was any reason at all why human beings would be creatures capable of reason, or that reason would relate to reality itself. If my brain is nothing but a random accident in a place that is produced by random forces, why should I believe what my brain tells me? Why should I not, instead, think I was seeing randomness only?

So science requires a faith in the order of the universe. That faith pre-exists the scientific method itself, and underwrites it. But the reasons for that belief are first and foremost, metaphysical, not experimental.

Ever think of becoming a standup comedian for Jesus and the bible? The incredible ability and variety of your responses to morph each and every unfavorable fact into a counterfactual proves conclusively you have what it takes. It's a scenario in which philosophy itself becomes ineffective when supplying factual arguments in terms of reason, history, and logic. Disregard all these conditions and what remains is an epic farce, an infinitesimal example of which is supplied here, relying solely on the artfulness of wordplay to establish credibility. The inevitable conclusion is that your posts cannot be responded to philosophically, since there's nothing of philosophic importance in them. Your style of argumentation rely on two main methods: distortion in the form of wordplay and simple, unmodified negation to proclaim your unquestionable obedience to an ancient and medieval worldview long defunct.

Sacred scripture, an oxymoron if there ever was, is the ultimate instruction set to prevent people from thinking by forcing them into believing unconditionally upon which basis most of their judgements are based. Anything beyond is considered ultra vires and defended to the max.

It's long been proven to be as Hitchens wrote:

Religion poisons everything.

It may require a more advanced species than ours to be religious without becoming absurd and all the grotesque consequences which follow from it.

Question: If your brain tells you to believe in the bible, why do you believe that without any encountered skepticism?

[Immanuel Can]

It's long been proven to be as Hitchens wrote:

Religion poisons everything.

I love it when people use passive voice to hide their lack of substance. It's "been proven," has it?

Well, Mr. Hitchens, I'm quite certain, knows he was wrong now.

[Skepdick]

No, seriously, after Yahweh plucked the original mating pair out of thin air, why did He feel it was necessary to give them penises and vaginas? Why make reproduction all about sex? About copulation. Incest to begin with, of course, but we all know just how tumultuous discussions of human sexuality have become of late. And then the part where He anchored the libido in the most primitive part of the brain...all but guaranteeing turbulent conflicts.

That's the best He could come up with?

Buddy, if Biblical is incest bothers you; wait till you gear about Evolutionary incest.

We all come from a single common ancestor.

[Skepdick]

Is that why you find it particularly galling when science undermines or contradicts the Bible? It must seem like a sort of betrayal.

Do you find it particularly galling when new science undermines or contradicts the old science? It must seem like some sort of betrayal.

From where I'm looking science is simply the process of Orthodox Christian process of theosis. But instead of getting closer and closer to (being unified with) God, it pursues unification with reality/nature. It pursues Truth.

Whatever that is.

[Dubious]

It's long been proven to be as Hitchens wrote:

Religion poisons everything.

I love it when people use passive voice to hide their lack of substance. It's "been proven," has it?

Well, Mr. Hitchens, I'm quite certain, knows he was wrong now.

Mr. Hitchens knew that he was going to know as much after he died as before he was born...and so will you. Otherwise, you haven't refuted anything I wrote which proves to me, among a myriad of other times, that you're incapable.

To repeat the question:

If your brain tells you to believe in the bible, why do you believe that without any encountered skepticism?

[iambiguous]

No, seriously, after Yahweh plucked the original mating pair out of thin air, why did He feel it was necessary to give them penises and vaginas? Why make reproduction all about sex? About copulation. Incest to begin with, of course, but we all know just how tumultuous discussions of human sexuality have become of late. And then the part where He anchored the libido in the most primitive part of the brain...all but guaranteeing turbulent conflicts.

That's the best He could come up with?

Buddy, if Biblical is incest bothers you; wait till you gear about Evolutionary incest.

We all come from a single common ancestor.

Incest doesn't bother me. It does bother most Christians though. Also, in a No God world, nature doesn't send you to Hell if incest is a...sin?

"Incest in the Bible refers to sexual relations between certain close kinship relationships which are prohibited by the Hebrew Bible. These prohibitions are found predominantly in Leviticus 18:7–18 and 20:11–21, but also in Deuteronomy." wiki

Prohibited. Unless of course you're God.

[Skepdick]

Incest doesn't bother me

Congenital disabilities and genetic disorders don't bother you?!? Well, well! Aren't you thpethial?

It does bother most Christians though.

Congenital disabilities and genetic disorders bother most people.

Also, in a No God world, nature doesn't send you to Hell if incest is a...sin?

It is quite literally what nature does. Repetitive incest reduces genetic diversity which lands you in a very special kind of hell.

The hell of wide-spread congenital disabilities and genetic disorders.

"Incest in the Bible refers to sexual relations between certain close kinship relationships which are prohibited by the Hebrew Bible. These prohibitions are found predominantly in Leviticus 18:7–18 and 20:11–21, but also in Deuteronomy." wiki

Yeah! Because actively avoiding incest promotes genetic diversity and reduces the risk of congenital disabilities and genetic disorders!

Prohibited. Unless of course you're God.

Prohibited. Unless of course you're Nature.

You are special kind of stupid. The kind of stupid who only sees the letter, but not the spirit of the law.

You are the objectively immoral kind of stupid.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Incest doesn't bother me

Congenital disabilities and genetic disorders don't bother you?!? Well, well! Aren't you thpethial?

It does bother most Christians though.

Congenital disabilities and genetic disorders bother most people.

Also, in a No God world, nature doesn't send you to Hell if incest is a...sin?

It is quite literally what nature does. Repetitive incest reduces genetic diversity which lands you in a very special kind of hell.

The hell of wide-spread congenital disabilities and genetic disorders.

"Incest in the Bible refers to sexual relations between certain close kinship relationships which are prohibited by the Hebrew Bible. These prohibitions are found predominantly in Leviticus 18:7–18 and 20:11–21, but also in Deuteronomy." wiki

Yeah! Because actively avoiding incest promotes genetic diversity and reduces the risk of congenital disabilities and genetic disorders!

Prohibited. Unless of course you're God.

Prohibited. Unless of course you're Nature.

You are special kind of stupid. The kind of stupid who only sees the letter, but not the spirit of the law.

You are the objectively immoral kind of stupid.

That is the problem with moral relativism where its essence is 'to each their own' and so, 'tolerance of others moral maxims' is primary.

Even higher evolved animals has the 'intuition' to avoid 'incest' as an implicit to the groups and the species. This is universal in the species, thus objective.
Males in many animal species, e.g. lions, elephants are forced [violence if necessary] and drive to leave the group after puberty.
This is more glaring in the highest evolved species, i.e. humans which adopt incest avoidance as a moral maxim.

Since incest avoidance is universal and objective in higher animals, the universality and objectivity of it is more significant within the human species.
In this sense, morality [specific to incest avoidance] is universal and objective.
This is prohibition -the oughtnot-ness of incest substantiated has since been verified by biology, genetics and psychology.

Unfortunately with humans, there are those who defy the objective moral norms and standard due to defects and damage to the impulse inhibitors.
But the point is damage to the inhibitors does not obviate the universal and objective incest avoidance algorithm in the brain.

As such, on this basis re incest avoidance, morality is universal and objective.
There are other moral elements that are universal and objective where each must be verified and justified via the scientific FSRK.
All these verified universal and objective moral elements combine to make morality objective [as qualified not standalone and absolute].

[Age]

It's long been proven to be as Hitchens wrote:

Religion poisons everything.

I love it when people use passive voice to hide their lack of substance. It's "been proven," has it?

Well, Mr. Hitchens, I'm quite certain, knows he was wrong now.

Well it is very obvious how 'religion', itself, (a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion with a particular system of faith and/or belief in some particular thing),'poisons', (stops, or prevents) one from recognizing and seeing the actual Truth of things.

you are a perfect example of this phenomena "immanuel can".