Challenge to proponents of objective morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-08-2017, 07:04 PM
RE: Challenge to proponents of objective morality
(23-08-2017 06:49 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Why yes, yes you can. Who am I to keep you from making a fool of yourself in the public square? To be honest, I rather enjoy your public displays of ignorance and find them most entertaining. ... While that would normally make me feel like a bad man for taking pleasure in your ignorance, Jesus says it's okay to ridicule idiotic ignorance when it's accompanied by the degree of unsupported arrogance you display.

Sorry to break to you buddy, I don't put much stock in what a bunch of atheists, on an atheists forum, think about my intelligence. I guess if this was the same reaction I got everywhere else, beyond this little frictional microcosm, it might mean something.

If you get your kicks out of ridiculing people you believe are less intelligent than you, or more ignorant than you, by all means do so at my expensive. If that some how eases whatever shit you're going through on any given day, by all means continue on, it's of no cost to me.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Tomasia's post
23-08-2017, 07:14 PM (This post was last modified: 23-08-2017 07:21 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Challenge to proponents of objective morality
(23-08-2017 07:04 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Sorry to break to you buddy, I don't put much stock in what a bunch of atheists, on an atheists forum, think about my intelligence.

And yet, here you are. On an atheist forum subjecting your lack of basic education to ridicule.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2017, 06:30 AM
RE: Challenge to proponents of objective morality
(23-08-2017 07:14 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(23-08-2017 07:04 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Sorry to break to you buddy, I don't put much stock in what a bunch of atheists, on an atheists forum, think about my intelligence.

And yet, here you are. On an atheist forum subjecting your lack of basic education to ridicule.
For periods of time over years, but I don't think ole tomsy is stupid but resists accepting ideas in ways outside of a self formulated scope.

And why questions like why in an objective system do some morally withold the ideas of bowing to the authority(god or nation) and tradition while some merely are more focused on the fairness and harm done to others. Which is supposed to be a moral good if they are all moral codes.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
24-08-2017, 06:55 AM
RE: Challenge to proponents of objective morality
(24-08-2017 06:30 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  For periods of time over years, but I don't think ole tomsy is stupid but resists accepting ideas in ways outside of a self formulated scope.

I'm reluctant to accept any idea that can't be articulated properly, that those who hold it can't answer direct questions about, etc.. Even more so when those positions hold little traction outside of those individual persons, one's that they fail to even convince their own peers about.

In the situation here were a handful of individuals hold that neither truth, nor morality are objective or subjective, it has yet to be presented what aspect of their position excludes these from being either, or. What I more often see than not is a categorical error, and often a conflating of objective with absolute. It would be interesting if they created their own thread titled "truth is not objective", to watch them defend this to their peers. Girlyman believes that the 2+2=4 is not objectively true, appealing to radixs as support, but he's won little agreement among his peers here.

Quote:And why questions like why in an objective system do some morally withold the ideas of bowing to the authority(god or nation) and tradition while some merely are more focused on the fairness and harm done to others. Which is supposed to be a moral good if they are all moral codes.

And some will see their focus of fairness and harm as a form of bowing to a moral authority, a part of the moral law to love others, a concession to the law written within their heart.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2017, 09:39 AM (This post was last modified: 24-08-2017 09:51 AM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Challenge to proponents of objective morality
(24-08-2017 06:55 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Girlyman believes that the 2+2=4 is not objectively true, appealing to radixs as support, but he's won little agreement among his peers here.

That's because most of us learned that all number systems are relative to their bases when we were like 12 and don't see the need to repeat what every 7th grader was taught. It makes no sense to talk about objective "truth". There are many objective "truths" depending on which logical framework you use for truth interpretation. None of them are subject to personal opinion and all of them depend on the mind for existence , and all of them are relative, none are absolute. Your words, they make no sense.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
24-08-2017, 09:51 AM
Challenge to proponents of objective morality
(24-08-2017 09:39 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(24-08-2017 06:55 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Girlyman believes that the 2+2=4 is not objectively true, appealing to radixs as support, but he's won little agreement among his peers here.

That's because most of us learned that all number systems are relative to their bases when we were like 12 and don't see the need to repeat what every 7th grader was taught. It makes no sense to talk about objective "truth". There are many objective "truths" depending on which logical framework you use for truth interpretation, and all of them are relative. Your words, they make no sense.


Yes apparently you don’t understand that something being relative doesn’t negate it being objective. You seem to be conflating objective with absolute.


I also wasn’t aware that 7th and 12th graders are taught there’s no such thing as objective truth, in fact I’d say most atheists here seems to have missed that lesson as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2017, 09:52 AM (This post was last modified: 24-08-2017 10:21 AM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Challenge to proponents of objective morality
(24-08-2017 09:51 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Yes apparently you don’t understand that something being relative doesn’t negate it being objective.

You apparently don't understand that they are completely orthogonal. I already explained that ALL the valid formal truth interpretation frameworks are objectively true, by virtue of their very definition. There is no single objective "truth". There are many. None are any more "true" than any other and the question itself is ill-formed. It's like asking whether "the shortest path between 2 points is a straight line" is objectively true.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2017, 10:06 AM
RE: Challenge to proponents of objective morality
(24-08-2017 09:51 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I also wasn’t aware that 7th and 12th graders are taught there’s no such thing as objective truth, in fact I’d say most atheists here seems to have missed that lesson as well.

You also weren't aware what the base of a number system was until 2 years ago. Says more about your lack of awareness than anything else.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2017, 11:51 AM
Challenge to proponents of objective morality
(24-08-2017 09:52 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  There is no single objective "truth". There are many. None are any more "true" than any other and the question itself is ill-formed. It's like asking whether "the shortest path between 2 points is a straight line" is objectively true.

Nice strawman, I never claimed there’s only a single objective truth.


And now you’re claiming there are many objective truths, which is a bit different then claiming there is no objective truth.

If your argument is that there are many objective truths, I have never argued otherwise. And your attempts to drag me into that argument involves one huge strawman.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2017, 02:18 PM (This post was last modified: 24-08-2017 02:36 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Challenge to proponents of objective morality
(24-08-2017 11:51 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(24-08-2017 09:52 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  There is no single objective "truth". There are many. None are any more "true" than any other and the question itself is ill-formed. It's like asking whether "the shortest path between 2 points is a straight line" is objectively true.

Nice strawman, I never claimed there’s only a single objective truth.


And now you’re claiming there are many objective truths, which is a bit different then claiming there is no objective truth.

If your argument is that there are many objective truths, I have never argued otherwise. And your attempts to drag me into that argument involves one huge strawman.

They are only "objective" truths because we define them to be. Axioms are by definition "objective", there is no need to state it. The whole purpose of the definition itself is to remove any subjectivity from it.

"Given a line and a point not on the line, it is possible to draw exactly one line through the given point parallel to the line." is an axiom in Euclidean geometry.

The contradictory "There exist two lines parallel to a given line through a given point not on the line." is an axiom in Lobachevskian geometry

They are a contradiction but both are nonetheless objectively true. In fact, they are both as objectively true as you can possibly get. So I don't know where you think you're going with this concept of "objective truth" but it is elementary to show it will lead exactly nowhere except forcing you to accept contradictions and throw away the Aristotelian logic you so clearly depend on.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: