[split from] Atheist because
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-05-2014, 03:35 PM
RE: Jeremy Doesn't understand what Objective means
No one said you're objectively an obtuse asshole. You're an obtuse asshole, but it's subjective. Just like the Nazi's "moral" decision to exterminate Jews, just like your hypothetical's decision to persecute atheists and gays. They may claim they're acting out of objective morality (their standard for objective morality, the Bible, would certainly support them in this regard), but subjectively, when one considers more than the outdated opinions of a barbaric and superstitious ancient people who didn't know that the sun was in outer space, we can determine subjectively that they, like you, are full of self-important, self-justified, self-righteous bullshit.

Religion is proof that invisible men can obscure your vision.
Visit my blog
Follow me on Twitter @TwoCultSurvivor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TwoCultSurvivor's post
09-05-2014, 03:35 PM
RE: Jeremy Doesn't understand what Objective means
(09-05-2014 03:13 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(09-05-2014 03:28 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Right and wrong are not determined by my society. I renounce my cultural relativism!

Look, asshole, you continue with this false dichotomy. You absolute, literal-minded dipshits do this all the time.

You lack the wit to see that there are more than two positions, that it is far more subtle and nuanced than you seem capable of conceiving.

Fuck off.

I'm fairly prone to withholding judgment and trying to give people the benefit of the doubt, but even I'm starting to agree with those who simply belittle and dismiss you because you don't even try to engage in considering the merits of any alternative arguments. You have only one trick and you keep trying to pull it over and over, despite the fact that no one is fooled by it, and no one ever will be.

This is the last time I will try before completely giving up on you and joining the side that is actively hostile to you. WE DON'T ACCEPT A PURE EXTERNAL/OBJECTIVE vs PURE RELATIVE/SUBJECTIVE MORAL DICHOTOMY. We DON'T believe in or argue for purely relative and subjective moral judgements. We have other moral theories that we occasionally try to explain to you, but you aren't interested in understanding and intellectually engaging with those other theories if it means opening your mind to more than your one trick moral dichotomy.

The problem isn't that you don't understand. That we could deal with. The problem is, you don't want to understand and you are determined to not try to understand or seriously attempt to find any other understanding. THAT is what we belittle and insult and dismiss about you. And unless something changes, I have to say I agree with them now, though I didn't before.

Jesus is my Stalker: He has graced me with his unconditional love, but if I reject it and refuse to love him in return, he will make my life Hell.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like djhall's post
09-05-2014, 03:41 PM
RE: Jeremy Doesn't understand what Objective means
(09-05-2014 03:33 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(09-05-2014 03:32 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  And the crusades said killing non christains was good. The nazis were also christians. Seems like many genocidal people do it in the name of christianity. Again,
Read a fucking book!Drinking Beverage

Genocide is good relative to the culture.

This is cultural relativism.

If you have a problem with it, find another view to hold about morals.

Already have one its called keeping people happy. Something you and your imaginary friend jesus don't have is empathy.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2014, 03:42 PM
RE: Jeremy Doesn't understand what Objective means
(09-05-2014 03:31 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(09-05-2014 03:13 PM)Chas Wrote:  Look, asshole, you continue with this false dichotomy. You absolute, literal-minded dipshits do this all the time.

You lack the wit to see that there are more than two positions, that it is far more subtle and nuanced than you seem capable of conceiving.

Fuck off.

Case closed. Drinking Beverage

No, your mind is closed. Now will you fuck off?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
09-05-2014, 03:42 PM
RE: Jeremy Doesn't understand what Objective means
(09-05-2014 03:28 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(09-05-2014 03:01 PM)guitar_nut Wrote:  That's right. And all those individuals form a group that determines morality and provides feedback to its individuals, thus establishing a subjective 'good' and 'bad'. For example, this group has decided you're an obtuse asshole.

Right!

Just like the Nazis established that genocide was good.

Now you've got it ! ThumbsupThumbsup

You've never had it and are seemingly incapable of getting it. The Nazis are a subset of humanity that the rest of humanity disagreed with, which is why WWII happened. The Jews at the time of the Bible's writing were also a subset of humanity and their version of morality has also been partially or mostly rejected by the rest of today's humanity. The Bible also condones genocide, just with different people as the targets (specific groups like the Amalekites, who no longer exist). One could say that the Germans did to the Jews what the Jews did to the Amalekites, to an extent. Either way, all of this ridiculous example of Godwin's Law is getting obnoxious...

A subset of humanity doesn't define what morality is for the entirety of humanity, humanity as a whole determines morality. You're not proving anything with your idiotic notion that one small subset's genocidal views mean that humanity as a whole has ruled genocide "moral". That's the tail wagging the dog, human morality is determined by human society, which consists of ALL of us. Consensus morality is all that can really be achieved, there is no external source of "objective" morality. There is simply no legitimate evidence of any so-called "objective" morality, at least none that's ever been presented that I'm aware of (and I'm well-read in that area). If humanity as a whole came to a consensus that genocide was moral, society as a whole would crumble, which I don't see happening.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Azaraith's post
09-05-2014, 03:43 PM
RE: Jeremy Doesn't understand what Objective means
(09-05-2014 03:33 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(09-05-2014 03:32 PM)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote:  And the crusades said killing non christains was good. The nazis were also christians. Seems like many genocidal people do it in the name of christianity. Again,
Read a fucking book!Drinking Beverage

Genocide is good relative to the culture.

This is cultural relativism.

If you have a problem with it, find another view to hold about morals.

You know, not one person here has claimed 'cultural relativism' as a position. Not one.

That's because you present a false dichotomy.

Now fuck off.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
09-05-2014, 03:45 PM
RE: Jeremy Doesn't understand what Objective means
(09-05-2014 03:07 PM)ShirubaDangan Wrote:  Now then, yes it is completely up to society and if they were to do that they could but that does not make it any more right.

You and I agree.

Can you explain why this is so to your atheist comrades here?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2014, 03:46 PM
RE: Jeremy Doesn't understand what Objective means
(09-05-2014 03:43 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(09-05-2014 03:33 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Genocide is good relative to the culture.

This is cultural relativism.

If you have a problem with it, find another view to hold about morals.

You know, not one person here has claimed 'cultural relativism' as a position. Not one.

That's because you present a false dichotomy.

Now fuck off.

LOL!

You are the one who has been defending moral relativism here.

Now you are beginning to see why its absurd.

Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2014, 03:47 PM
RE: Jeremy Doesn't understand what Objective means
(09-05-2014 03:46 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(09-05-2014 03:43 PM)Chas Wrote:  You know, not one person here has claimed 'cultural relativism' as a position. Not one.

That's because you present a false dichotomy.

Now fuck off.

LOL!

You are the one who has been defending moral relativism here.

Now you are beginning to see why its absurd.

Thumbsup

No what is absurd is your position.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2014, 03:51 PM
RE: Jeremy Doesn't understand what Objective means
Is this the same guy who tried to defend rape in the bible with moral relativism, or are we now talking to a completely different personality?

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: