Is morality objective or subjective?

[Dubious]

To repeat the question:

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

Give me a question with some relation to truth, and maybe I'll even answer it.

You mean YOUR relation to the truth, the only truth you acknowledge! So if I agree that Adam & Eve is a true story and evolution is a false story then maybe you'll answer it because that is the true story.

Well, that's ok; your answer has already been predefined ages ago as everyone knows by now.

[iambiguous]

On the other hand, IC is able to sustain the comfort and the consolation of believing "in his head" that the Christian God has provided him with 1] moral commandments on this side of the grave and 2] is there to assure him that immortality and salvation await him for all of eternity on the other side.

And, so far, all the philosophical arguments debunking him here have not persuaded him to abandon that and accept, what, that human existence is essentially meaningless and purposeless and that when he's dead and gone, it's oblivion all the way down?

The Fool!

Seriously though, isn't God and religion really just another manifestation of the "psychology of objectivism"? Rooted existentially in dasein and predicated solely on what you manage to "think yourself" into believing is true? Or something that others have accomplished for you?

That is not what I ask of him.

Come on, I've been asking him to respond substantively to my points now for months. Only to have him configure into Mr. Wiggle over and over again. It's just that from my own rooted existentially in dasein frame of mind, he is largely a source of entertainment to me here. A way to expose how deep into denial the religious fanatic can go.

I think that even if you tried really hard and sincerely you could not recapitulate what I do ask of him (i.e. Evangelical and other hardcore religious believers).

Again, you can go up into the spiritual/philosophical clouds with him if you wish, but I am more interested myself in exploring how those Reasonable Faith videos managed to convince him that there is substantial historical and scientific proof that the Christian God does exist. What with objective morality, immortality and salvation itself on the line.

I can't even get Craig and the Reasonable Faith folks themselves to go here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... SjDNeMaRoX

However: I could repeat back to both of you exactly what you ask for and exactly what your positions are.

It’s amazing but I actually read and think about — think through — the positions that people have.

Right, you and your "positions". Though, fortunately for you, there are still plenty of folks here who will eagerly accommodate you up in the intellectual/theoretical/philosophical clouds.

Better, perhaps, if you remind me that this is the "ethical theory" board and that I am clearly the outlier here.

Guilty as charged.

[Alexis Jacobi]

…but I am more interested myself in exploring how those Reasonable Faith videos managed to convince him that there is substantial historical and scientific proof that the Christian God does exist. What with objective morality, immortality and salvation itself on the line.

If you actually think that he was convinced by videos, then you have not understood (nor likely read) the terse descriptions he gave of his conversion-experience.

His faith seems to be constructed like a fortification — every part of the structure designed to withstand destabilization. Truly, faith built with “rock” and conceived as standing on biblical rock-certainty.

The videos are crass and vulgar capsules for crass, vulgar and terribly uninformed individuals of our modernity — who have no sufficient understanding of historical European Christianity — and who might be hooked by one, single idea.

[Understand this, too: All opposition and all invective here is interpreted to arise as a result of “doing the right thing”. He seems sustained — justified — by the sheer opposition received. Evangelicals are an odd bunch in that sense. Imagine the glory!]

[iambiguous]

…but I am more interested myself in exploring how those Reasonable Faith videos managed to convince him that there is substantial historical and scientific proof that the Christian God does exist. What with objective morality, immortality and salvation itself on the line.

If you actually think that he was convinced by videos, then you have not understood (nor likely read) the terse descriptions he gave of his conversion-experience.

In other words, my reaction to him is necessarily wrong because it refuses to accept that your own reaction to him as necessarily right. Trust me...I get that part. Whereas I am always willing to acknowledge that my own posts here are rooted existentially in dasein. And thus always subject to change given new experiences, new relationships and access to new information and knowledge.

Then whatever in regard to moral commandments, immortality and salvation, this...

His faith seems to be constructed like a fortification — every part of the structure designed to withstand destabilization. Truly, faith built with “rock” and conceived as standing on biblical rock-certainty.

...means?

Then, from my frame of mind, back to this:

IC is able to sustain the comfort and the consolation of believing "in his head" that the Christian God has provided him with 1] moral commandments on this side of the grave and 2] is there to assure him that immortality and salvation await him for all of eternity on the other side.

He either believes this sincerely or he doesn't. And if he does, there is really nothing I can argue that would make the grim fact that "here and now" I can't believe it go away. He knows this. That's why he has to "wiggle, wiggle, wiggle" out of responding substantively to my points about those videos. If I do say so myself. Sans the videos he is back to just a "leap of faith" and "because the Bible says so".

As for you, perhaps your own posts here are but another rendition of "because Satyr says so"?

If, of course, you really are two different people.

[Age]

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?

In so-called 'God's world', which is just the One Universe, Itself, then if human beings are living in 'a world' that they do not like, 'a hell', then this is because adult human beings are just 'missing the mark', or 'sinning' in another word.

Obviously no one can get sent anywhere else, (heaven nor hell) after the Wrongly called 'death' of a human body. And, just as obvious is the fact that the way human beings behave, or misbehave, makes 'life' on earth a Heaven, or a Hell.

"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

Well the children of "adam" and "eve" would have been fairly close kinship relationships, which as some believe is where all of you human beings came from, right?

Unless, of course, God was sculpting more 'couples' and placing them around the earth, which God never spoke about and thus mentioned before, in the bible.

Prohibited. Unless of course you're God.

Which close kinship relation was God, Itself, meant to be have sex with?

ACTUALLY, I miss NOT READING the old AGE myself.

I could say here that I miss you just answering and clarifying the actual questions I pose, and ask you "imabiguous", but at the moment I cannot recall if you ever have.

you obviously have not here, again.

[Immanuel Can]

All that you are saying is ...

Your supposition is that I'm going to let you misrepresent me like that, and be fine with it?

Good luck.

You are...

That's called

"ad hominem."

Ever were it true, which unfortunately for you, it's clearly not, it would be totally irrelevant to any matter at all anyway.

Philosophy 101: I highly recommend it.

[Immanuel Can]

To repeat the question:

Give me a question with some relation to truth, and maybe I'll even answer it.

You mean YOUR relation to the truth,

No, any truth. Give me a question that doesn't require the assumption of something obviously false in order to answer, and maybe you'll get a response.

[Alexis Jacobi]

That's called ….

Note: (some webpage):

An ad hominem argument is not always fallacious. Because ad hominem arguments have been associated with dirty tricks and name-calling, they are usually considered as hits below the belt that do not advance a healthy debate.

However, an ad hominem argument can sometimes be used as a legitimate rhetorical strategy. When the claims made about a person’s character are relevant to the discussion or the conclusions being drawn, and they are properly justified, the ad hominem argument is valid.

For example, attacks on a person who has cheated on their partner are irrelevant to the quality of their mathematical reasoning, but they are relevant to deciding whether this person should be the leader of an association that emphasizes family values.

You demonstrate a range of character issues peculiar to a genus. For example, that fanaticism ruins good thinking. Or that it limits and inhibits penetrating analysis. Much has been said already. All you negate.

All my carefully expressed criticisms are totally valid — as are those of most who bring complaints against you. But there are two classes: the ideas, the beliefs; and the personality defects of these (as in your case) dominated by self-blinding fanaticism.

You refuse to examine the ideas I bring because the consequences would be too challenging. So you hole up more in your fortress.

You must remember: you are not really the object of my critique. You are a vehicle for it.

…it would be totally irrelevant to any matter at all anyway.

What is relevant actually so often flies over your head!

[Dubious]

Give me a question with some relation to truth, and maybe I'll even answer it.

You mean YOUR relation to the truth,

No, any truth. Give me a question that doesn't require the assumption of something obviously false in order to answer, and maybe you'll get a response.

We're not talking about any truth; we're talking about the truth of the bible which contains very little of it but which you uphold as final and conclusive.

More than implying, what you're saying is, unless I agree with your assumptions regarding the ineffable truth of the bible, you won't respond to questions which put that supposed truth in dire jeopardy. As a rabid theist, this you have always done to detour valid questions which belong in a philosophy class rather than a bible class and its automatic acceptances in the truth of scripture.

Btw, philosophy is full of assumptions that can and should be debated if merely for the fun of it.

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

What is so obviously false about the question, since you're the one who brought it up when you wrote...

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?

This is a philosophical type question regarding anything the brain tells one. It could even qualify as a neurological one. Yet you exempt the bible in the domain of what to believe as an unquestionable truth superseding and making superfluous all others that would further examine it!

Can you answer the question philosophically or not, or is another cheap underhanded reply the most you can muster?

[Immanuel Can]

You mean YOUR relation to the truth,

No, any truth. Give me a question that doesn't require the assumption of something obviously false in order to answer, and maybe you'll get a response.

We're not talking about any truth...

Yes, we are. You won't like that, but the truth is always a real stickler on these things.

[Dubious]

No, any truth. Give me a question that doesn't require the assumption of something obviously false in order to answer, and maybe you'll get a response.

We're not talking about any truth...

Yes, we are. You won't like that, but the truth is always a real stickler on these things.

You haven't explained what's obviously false about the question. Clearly there is no philosophical thought process on your part to even attempt it...another cop-out in your long history of cop-outs.

Also, when you say ....

Yes, we are. You won't like that, but the truth is always a real stickler on these things.

...the only truth you're referring to is your complete literalization of the bible which purposely prevents any philosophical, historical or logical examination of its content. In effect, your type of uncompromising theism is a total dead end highlighting a diseased mentality...unless you're just playing a game to gratify your ego. There is no philosophy here; whenever and however attempted, it instantly gets negated. Not all who claim to be theists are like that; they accept that both history and philosophy are acceptable parts of the curriculum, an indispensable part in its discussion. The only possibility that one can learn anything from you is through an MRI scan to highlight what may cause such a brain implosion which accepts ancient stories as a universal truth too sacred to ever be queried, nullifying all challenges in an extremely clumsy manner...the very opposite of intelligent making debate impossible.

[Skepdick]

Absolutely shameless!

Seriously though, how on Earth do "minds" like this not only persist here...but actually thrive!





Oh, yeah, I almost forgot:

That's pretty easy to answer. Minds like me have plethora of examples of how NOT to be like while navigating the world...

mistakesdemotivator_grande.jpeg

[Immanuel Can]

We're not talking about any truth...

Yes, we are. You won't like that, but the truth is always a real stickler on these things.

You haven't explained what's obviously false about the question.

I shouldn't need to. If you knew anything about it, you'd have known better. Since you know nothing about it, I don't feel any particular burden to deal with your question.

[Dubious]

Yes, we are. You won't like that, but the truth is always a real stickler on these things.

You haven't explained what's obviously false about the question.

I shouldn't need to. If you knew anything about it, you'd have known better. Since you know nothing about it, I don't feel any particular burden to deal with your question.

You're an endless fount of copouts, making assertions and when challenged unable to back them up. Yours is an interminably long history of the same excuses whenever an answer eludes you. Is there anyone here who doesn't already know this? If you could, you'd be happy to, but you haven't a clue. If, as you assert, I know nothing about it, why wouldn't you enlighten me; after all this is a philosophy forum...or haven't you noticed.

As mentioned, you are a complete dead end. There's hardly any space between where it begins and where it ends. If I were a Grand Master of theism, I'd be forced to kick you out of the lodge as an embarrassment.

[promethean75]

"I'd be forced to kick you out of the lodge as an embarrassment"

yerrrrr outta there! Go on, yer gone. Go on