(October 20, 2026 at 8:07 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(October 20, 2026 at 8:04 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: According to who??

According to words Angel, lol.  That’s what meta ethical objectivity means.  It may or may not exist, but if it does….then it is by definition independent of any given x’s opinions, nature, mind, etc.

The meta ethical term for a morality dependent on a given x’s opinions, nature, mind, etc…is subjectivism.

You see his morality requires a god authority-shaped hole to subjectively decree what's right and wrong. And it has the right to do this based on a bunch of made-up attributes which, by some unknown standards, are considered to be good . . . ..somehow based on blind faith . . . . Yeah, that's apparently his "objective" morality.

(October 20, 2026 at 8:08 pm)Ravenshire Wrote: The gawd described in the buy-bull is no arbiter of objective morality. Were it real, it would not be a being worthy of respect, let alone adoration or worship. It's atrocities are legion and it's morality is at best, capricious and uneven.

Pointing to your gawd and claiming it's a moral authority is like pointing at a mafia Don and claiming the exact same thing.

Your gawd is not a moral arbiter, but an authoritarian.

I love him to justify god bothered morality in a way that's not viciously circular.

(October 20, 2026 at 8:32 pm)Ravenshire Wrote:

(October 20, 2026 at 7:59 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: You're a dishonest scumbag.You posed an objection, and I refuted it with arguments. Yet you abandoned the argument to talk about nonsense because you know you can't offer a rebuttal. I gave you a chance thinking you were engaging in good faith, but you're clearly not. We're done. Get lost. I will not respond or read your replies. When I see the names I said I would ignore, I just delete them without reading. Goodbye, idiot.

You're deleting our posts?!? Whatever shall we do?

I repeat: Damn you're dumb.

The true mark of a coward .

(October 20, 2026 at 10:54 am)AngelThMan Wrote: Why are they wrong? All I've heard is: subjective morality.

Why is anyone wrong? Why do you believe a deity is right?

You can't accuse  others  of arguing in bad faith then refuse to answer any questions yourself.

(October 20, 2026 at 2:47 pm)AngelThMan Wrote:

(October 20, 2026 at 2:38 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: A follower of Ayn Rand, lol.  God no.  As I keep telling you, I’m a person who believes that there are objective moral standards.  That moral propositions can be true or false, regardless of whether a person accepts them, follows them, does or doesn’t get into shit for not following them….what have you.

Let me at least tell you what I think an objective moral standard would be:

A law that is binding for every human in the universe. 

Not even close, but I doubt any one is surprised at this point. 

Moral objectivism is the meta-ethical view that certain moral truths, values, or principles are real, universal, and stance-independent. This means an action is right or wrong regardless of what any individual, group, or culture thinks, feels, or believes about it.

How is it possible you can argue for almost 70 pages about objective morality, and still not know what it means?

(October 20, 2026 at 3:13 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(October 20, 2026 at 2:47 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: All this time I had no idea you do believe in objective moral standards. Must be your wordy posts lol. No disrespect, I've literally been confused.

Let me at least tell you what I think an objective moral standard would be:

A law that is binding for every human in the universe. But in order for it to be law, it has to be enforceable. If it's not enforceable, it's not a law. 

 a law so defined can be enforceable regardless of whether or not it was true.  We’re not talking about the same thing.  I’ve been trying to explain objective morality to you and you’ve been demanding some form of legalistic relativism.

He genuinely doesn't seem to know what moral objectivism means, but is talking about some form  of moral authority, from a deity obviously, quelle surprise.

(October 20, 2026 at 3:17 pm)AngelThMan Wrote:

(October 20, 2026 at 3:13 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: What’s with the air quotes?  You deciding that you’re willing to flaunt the truth doesn’t make it any less true.  Moreover, a law so defined can be enforceable regardless of whether or not it was true.  We’re not talking about the same thing.  I’ve been trying to explain objective morality to you and you’ve been demanding some form of legalistic relativism.

I don't believe any objective morality exists for the atheist. 

Atheism is irrelevant to moral objectivism, a moral claim either is or is not objectively true, whether a deity exists or not.

(October 20, 2026 at 3:46 pm)AngelThMan Wrote:

(October 20, 2026 at 3:40 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Well, you’re just flat out wrong there.  Thing is…what you’re actually referring to doesn’t need a god either.  Here on earth we call it a kangaroo court.  Where the objective truth of some law or charge is irrelevant, only whether some person or body is powerful enough to kill you for catching the charge.  

You don’t have to steal, fir example, to be executed for theft…and you certainly don’t have to acknowledge the validity of the kangaroo court or want to be executed by them for them to put two in your head, throw you in a dumpster, and send your family a bill for the process.

That all sounds pretty bad to me, both practically and objectively speaking….

Another word salad. No idea what any of that means.

You have not convinced me an objective morality can exist for you.

That's because you don't know what objective morality means, the "for you" part of your sentence makes that crystal clear.  

Lets try an example, it is  objectively true that all living things evolved, creationists deny this, this does not mean it is not true "for them". Something is objectively true - by definition - independently of anyone's  opinion about it. This also doesn't mean they can be forced to accept it is true. 

Moral authority, and moral objectivism are two distinct philosophical concepts .

(October 20, 2026 at 6:47 pm)AngelThMan Wrote:

(October 20, 2026 at 6:45 pm)emjay Wrote: Would it have been so hard for him just to create a vegetarian world as it were... where there were only insentient plants to eat, not animals? Where animals are concerned, if they are not part of your morality construct, then yes, that is indeed unnecessary... needless... suffering.

I think animal suffering is about human suffering. It makes people like you suffer. Animals themselves don't have souls, and therefore don't know they're suffering. The one who suffers is you, and God allows it for a greater good

I think suffering is another word you have failed to understand. Any animal that has a central nervous system is able to experience suffering, it is an evolved trait that likely provided a critical survival advantage.

(October 31, 2026 at 6:34 pm)Sheldon Wrote:

(October 20, 2026 at 3:13 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote:  a law so defined can be enforceable regardless of whether or not it was true.  We’re not talking about the same thing.  I’ve been trying to explain objective morality to you and you’ve been demanding some form of legalistic relativism.

He genuinely doesn't seem to know what moral objectivism means, but is talking about some form  of moral authority, from a deity obviously, quelle surprise.

That's why he can't address my baby killing hypothetical. His "objective morals", aka divine command theory would force him to say "yes" if his good asked him to kill a baby, or a few, or a few more, or ..