(10 hours ago)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(11 hours ago)AngelThMan Wrote: Only in pointing out red herrings. My OP is an internal critique on atheism. I made no claims about God at all. Please post any claim I made about God and I will apologize

Nonsense.

Boru

I'm done with your non arguments. Only one person has been willing to engage in good faith. I will continue with him and ignore you and the rest of the idiots

(10 hours ago)AngelThMan Wrote:

(10 hours ago)Ravenshire Wrote: I've already explained it. That you can't understand it is a you problem.

Breaks out crayons...

Please do ignore me. Then I can just point and laugh and quit the fool's game of trying to educate the willfully ignorant.

We're done. I will not read anything with your name

Good. Now I can focus on the lulz.

Your threats are nowhere near as dire as you think.

(10 hours ago)AngelThMan Wrote:

(10 hours ago)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Nonsense.

Boru

I'm done with your non arguments. Only one person has been willing to engage in good faith. I will continue with him and ignore you and the rest of the idiots

(my bold)

Fact. Only one. You are not on that list.

ETA:
Actually, that was knee-jerk and unfair. There are a lot of people trying to engage in good faith. You're still not on the list.

(10 hours ago)AngelThMan Wrote: Let's get something straight. You're conflating truth with moral values. Those are two different things. You can't say your morality on abortion issues is truth. That's really your euphemism for objective. Instead of saying objective, which you have said doesn't exist, you say "truth." That's a cheat. 2+2=4 is an objective truth. Oughts and duties are not truth, unless there's an arbiter. Are you the arbiter? You can present your opinions on a moral value, and you would call it evidence. But that still doesn't make it a true moral value. It remains a moral opinion.

As a moral realist, I believe that truth is what gives moral statements moral values in the first place.  If I said it was immoral to eat cinnamon because it turns a fetus queer I would be either mistaken or lying...just for starters, lol..

Do you or do you not agree?  Do you believe that a valid moral statement must be a true statement, or not? Do you think that a lie, for example, can demonstrate a moral obligation? Do you think a mistake can demonstrate a moral obligation?

-just so you're clear...you're talking to an objectivist. I've never said that moral objectivity doesn't exist. I think it does....?

(10 hours ago)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(10 hours ago)AngelThMan Wrote: Let's get something straight. You're conflating truth with moral values. Those are two different things. You can't say your morality on abortion issues is truth. That's really your euphemism for objective. Instead of saying objective, which you have said doesn't exist, you say "truth." That's a cheat. 2+2=4 is an objective truth. Oughts and duties are not truth, unless there's an arbiter. Are you the arbiter? You can present your opinions on a moral value, and you would call it evidence. But that still doesn't make it a true moral value. It remains a moral opinion.

As a moral realist, I believe that truth is what gives moral statements moral values in the first place.  If I said it was immoral to eat cinnamon because it turns a fetus queer I would be either mistaken or lying...just for starters, lol..

Do you or do you not agree?  Do you believe that a valid moral statement must be a true statement, or not?  Do you think that a lie, for example, can demonstrate a moral obligation?  Do you think a mistake can demonstrate a moral obligation?

It has to be true that the moral value exists. Again, you're conflating truth with morality, which are two different. For a law of the land to exist, it must be "true" that the law exists. That says nothing about the nature of the law itself. It's illegal to double-park your car. That law exists. That law itself denotes nothing about truth, other than the law existing. By law we are required to follow it. That's it.

I imagine your argument for a moral "truth" regarding murder would be something like: I can show evidence that murder stops someone's life, therefore it's a moral truth that it's wrong. But no one has to follow it because humans think it's wrong, or true. To the person committing the murder it was the right act. Why is he wrong? If no law exists in the universe, how can he be wrong? Maybe I got your version wrong, so demonstrate yourself how you would justify murder being wrong as a "truth"

The law of the land would be relativism. I'm not a relativist. You haven't been asking about relativism. I'm a realist, you've been asking about objectivism. More broadly, you haven't been asking about legality - but morality.

Yes, I do think that there are objectively true statements about murder that identify it as an immoral act. Do you disagree? Do you think that true statements about murder are irrelevant to murders moral value, even? This is a question you will have to answer if we are to proceed in any way. Obviously, you can say that you don't think facts or particular facts matter. You've seen that many people here do not agree with me about this whole moral realism business. It's a position you can take. It's a disagreement we may have - but we kindoff have to know if or that or why we disagree to have any sort of productive conversation about the subject, wouldn't you agree? Breifly skipping ahead to that next stone...a person can believe that facts matter to valid moral statements and still not be a moral realist. Still not believe in moral objectivity. Subjectivism, relativism, and objectivism are all cognitivist positions. They all believe that there are moral facts. They differ only in what kind or category of facts the moral facts are.

(10 hours ago)AngelThMan Wrote:

(10 hours ago)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Nonsense.

Boru

I'm done with your non arguments. Only one person has been willing to engage in good faith. I will continue with him and ignore you and the rest of the idiots

FINALLY!! 

Boru

(9 hours ago)The Grand Nudger Wrote: The law of the land would be relativism.  I'm not a relativist.  You haven't been asking about relativism.  I'm a realist, you've been asking about objectivism.  More broadly, you haven't been asking about legality - but morality.

Yes, I do think that there are objectively true statements about murder that identify it as an immoral act.  Do you disagree?  Do you think that true statements about murder are irrelevant to murders moral value, even?  This is a question you will have to answer if we are to proceed in any way.  Obviously, you can say that you don't think facts or particular facts matter.  You've seen that many people here do not agree with me about this whole moral realism business.  It's a position you can take.  It's a disagreement we may have - but we kindoff have to know if or that or why we disagree to have any sort of productive conversation about the subject, wouldn't you agree?  Breifly skipping ahead to that next stone...a person can believe that facts matter to valid moral statements and still not be a moral realist.  Still not believe in moral objectivity.  Subjectivism, relativism, and objectivism are all cognitivist positions.  They all believe that there are moral facts.  They differ only in what kind or category of facts the moral facts are.

Of course I believe murder is wrong, but we're having a philosophical discussion where you have to prove why murder is wrong because you're claiming that's truth. Now you need to demonstrate how that is a universal truth.

Okay, but I didn't ask you whether or not you agreed murder was wrong. I asked you why...whether or not you believed murder was wrong in fact, and from a specific set of facts. You might believe that murder is wrong for you, you might believe that murder is wrong for society. The whys matter to understanding where each of us is coming from. To understanding each others position and what (if any) disagreement we are in.

I think that there are facts -about murder-...not about me, not about society, not about the laws of the land....that identify murder as immoral. Would you agree that this is the case and that this particular category of facts is what were trying to talk about when we talk about things being (or not being) objectively immoral?

(9 hours ago)AngelThMan Wrote: Of course I believe murder is wrong, but we're having a philosophical discussion where you have to prove why murder is wrong because you're claiming that's truth. Now you need to demonstrate how that is a universal truth.

Why would anybody mistake that for a universal truth?