"Testing within the parameters given" is not a form of objective testing. It's explicitly limited by the parameter giver - and would thus be relativistic if that parameter giver were your society, or subjective if that parameter giver were a single individual.

To test something objectively is to ignore whatever ludicrous red lines god draws on his dick map.

(June 15, 2023 at 4:19 pm)R-Farmer Wrote:

(June 15, 2023 at 10:37 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: That's interesting. I think I meet (online or in real life) more Christians who say they weren't raised Christian than atheists who do.

No reason to lie.
My mother was the only one who went to church regularly and she generally she took us, but we (being mixed race children who did not speak the language fluently) were not allowed inside for services or Sunday school. So unless you count the parking lot and the play ground outside the church 'growing up Christian' we didn't.

I can't control if you think my comment was an accusation that you're lying.

There's a really interesting sideline to be had in that. Traditionally, one of the defining characteristics of a religion has been organized social services. This has become increasingly less important to the religions whose characteristics went into defining religion et al. In the us, the majority of self professing christians attend only on major holidays, or never at all. They probably still feel like they grew up christian.

-but lay that aside and think about what it means for religion in general, for what may or could amount to religion. Inclusive descriptions of religion always allowed for the possibility of things like humanism being religious. That there was no organized church or official cannon or routine social gathering was the psuedo-disqualifier in others. Now, humanitarianism has those things which might never have been demonstrative, and the same things are no longer a major component of the christian expression of faith.

(June 16, 2023 at 8:34 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: God cannot possess righteousness if there is, in fact, no such thing as right.  If what you mean to say is that god possesses mightiness, fine?  Who cares?  I could follow mighty amoral potentates in the real world.  I don't need to invent one.

you are Right, morality or what you identified as 'right' can not exist outside of a society that supports it, as "right" is Not a self supporting self sustaining force. There are no inherent right or wrong traits. As right and wrong can only sustained by the power and authority of whom ever defines right. IE Might= right. I'm saying the right established by different countries/empires only last as long as the people do.

Now Because God has ultimate power and transcends all human authority His right is absolute.

This is why I make the distinction between God's righteousness and man's morality. As morality changes over time but God's righteousness Does not.

Quote:I've addressed this multiple times, and again directly above in this post.  Insisting that people stubbornly cling to any moral proposition from their cultural past will not insure or even imply that their moral system is objective.  Rather, it strongly suggests that you demand a relativistic morality frozen in time.  It would make a silly sort of sense that you demand this - I'll give you that.  As you've been conditioned to believe that the term "objective morality" refers to exactly this sort of thing, as expressed in the dead dead documents of your apparently frozen religion.

From an objectivists standpoint, just as people can get a math problem wrong, they can get a moral problem wrong.  The thing to do when you're wrong, is to get correct.  In your own framing, there's only one question to ask - and it's not for me or any other moral objectivist.  Was god getting all this shit wrong and then refusing to get correct..or is it just people like you fucking it up then laying their own inadequacies at the feet of their alleged gods?

But how can you say a moral problem is wrong when the variables change over time? Again unless you can provide an example of at least one empirically universal permanent example of a unchanging moral standard that all society must accept, then it is as I pointed out. In that all forms of Morality (not righteousness) are in fact relative.

(June 16, 2023 at 8:35 am)Tomato Wrote: To limit one's intellectual integrity by assuming something cannot be done without god behind it is a tragedy of Greek proportions.

..and Taking credit for something God did is a sin of biblical proportions.

bad post

(June 16, 2023 at 9:42 am)R-Farmer Wrote:

(June 16, 2023 at 8:35 am)Tomato Wrote: To limit one's intellectual integrity by assuming something cannot be done without god behind it is a tragedy of Greek proportions.

..and Taking credit for something God did is a sin of biblical proportions.

As there is no God the credit is available.

An unchanging deific perspective where interpretation can portray the position as tyrannical is not preferable to the humane world view.

Furthermore, god is not good just because he describes himself as such. A common trait with villains is that they always perceive themselves as doing good, wanting others to believe they are good, when a critical analysis shows they are not good.

And if even one person prefers the portrayal of the antagonist in the work of fiction, the writer has done a poor job of creating a protagonist worthy of acknowledgment.

(June 16, 2023 at 8:47 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: So you have your own idiosyncratic definition of moral objectivism and moral relativism.

No the definitions are the same. The application/philosophy of those definitions is what is different. I'm specifically saying without a society to support objective morality there are no ways to maintain the objectivity of the standard. As the strongest society is who defines morality. There are no points of morality that are always universally accepted.

Quote:The standard definition of moral objectivism is that there are objective moral principles that are valid for all people.

That's my point though.. We now on the earth do not all collectively agree one any one point of morality. let alone across time. This means objective morality while a great idea and talking point does not truly exist. Again unless you can provide just one example where all nations/societies agree that a deed is moral, and has always been accepted that way. Object morality is just a thought experiment.

Quote:Yours is an oxymoron.

This is not my personal position. google it (I can not provide links to published Cambridge debates or on the articles from philosophy today on the subject I am referencing.) I am providing you with my take on an age old debate that centers around the question:"Can morality be objective?" I say Morality can't (unless you can provide an example of it) However there is an absolute standard from god that is universal and transcends time and changes in society. I have identified that standard not as morality but as God's righteousness.

Quote: I'll go out on a limb and say that no matter the circumstances, doing any of those (and I'll add torture) for fun or on a whim is immoral, alway was, always will be.

Most societies would agree. but durning WWII Japan is was encouraged. As it hardened their troops and was used to set up a class cast system that not only help maintain control and discipline it indoctrinated troops and even subjugated/conquered people to develop unquestionable loyalty to the emperor. Had Japan won the war, this would be our Norm. just as it was for them as a feudal Japanese hold over/point of moral behavior from their past. In fact torture was universally accepted by most civilizations through out our past.

Quote: The essence of moral objectivism is that some things are right or wrong no matter the prevailing fashion or who is in charge.

and all I'm asking for is just 1 example of this to prove your assertion.

Quote:This seems to be a difficult concept for you to grasp; since you're still struggling to impose some relevance on what the societies in power think.

lol.. What seems impossible for me to fathom is why you guys are so ready to die on the hill of objective morality when neither one of you can provide just one example of it.

I get everything you are saying. I fully understand the philosophy behind it. I even agree to a point that such a system exists. (In god's righteousness, but not in man's morality) But I'm saying because you can not produce a valid example of object morality, It does not truly exist in real life. It's just a thought experiment that has no real world application.

(June 16, 2023 at 8:48 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: So much for his mighty magical powers, I guess.

-Or The creator of Everything maybe created things and principles, then put them into place, so that He would not have to 'magic' everything he wants to do/manipulate in this world.

If you wrote the code for a popular video game, would you not write in to the game things that would accommodate your preferred style of play that gave you the advantage when ever you logged in? Or would you make the game in such a way that you would have to hack in and bypass everything you already established?

Not to say you couldn't do that, but why would you if you could just set things up the way you want them?

So then why would god create the world Just to have to hack in and bypass everything he created anytime he wanted something done?

Maybe what seems like hacks to us (Supernatural occurrences) are just in fact apart of the natural order of things that bronze and Iron Age men (who wrote the Bible) thought were magic?