God is love. God is just. God is merciful.

[John V]

Nonsense. There are plenty of objective concepts people disagree about.

Can you give some examples of objective laws?

[genkaus]

Can you give some examples of objective laws?

The guarantee of fundamental rights and the laws that ensure that guarantee.

[John V]

Can you give some examples of objective laws?

The guarantee of fundamental rights and the laws that ensure that guarantee.

As what constitutes fundamental rights differs across cultures and times, they don't seem to be objective.

[genkaus]

As what constitutes fundamental rights differs across cultures and times, they don't seem to be objective.

Like I said before - disagreement is not a sound basis to judge objectivity.

[John V]

Like I said before - disagreement is not a sound basis to judge objectivity.

I disagree. If we hold a tape measure to a board, everyone would agree to its length, as that's an objective measurement.

Agreement doesn't prove objectivity, but disagreement does indicate subjectivity.

But go ahead and give us the sound basis you use to judge fundamental rights as objective, and tell us why those people who disagree with you are wrong and don't understand the objective nature of your position.

[Jacob(smooth)]

I'd like to hear about these objective laws as well.

[genkaus]

I disagree. If we hold a tape measure to a board, everyone would agree to its length, as that's an objective measurement.

Agreement doesn't prove objectivity, but disagreement does indicate subjectivity.

Wrong - people could argue that the measurement isn't being done properly or that the tape isn't accurate or that the board has been distorted to give inaccurate length. People can disagree about the length for all sorts of reasons - that disagreement does not indicate subjectivity.

But go ahead and give us the sound basis you use to judge fundamental rights as objective, and tell us why those people who disagree with you are wrong and don't understand the objective nature of your position.

Certain needs like life, liberty etc. are fundamental human needs - these aren't based on someone's opinion, they are factual - and the fundamental rights derive their legitimacy from these needs which is why they are objective. People who disagree ignore the factual nature of those needs which is why they are wrong.

Which brings us back to your god - whose 'laws' are not based on any factual understanding of human nature but on his whims and wishes which makes them subjective.

[Jacob(smooth)]

Bullshit. By no stretch of the imagination is "liberty" a fundamental human need. Nor is it objective come to that. I don't have liberty to stand in the street and shout profanity at the top of my lungs. Does that mean I don't have liberty?

[genkaus]

Bullshit. By no stretch of the imagination is "liberty" a fundamental human need. Nor is it objective come to that. I don't have liberty to stand in the street and shout profanity at the top of my lungs. Does that mean I don't have liberty?

You don't need imagination to identify the needs, you need research. Which has been done:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_human_needs

FYI, you do have the liberty to stand in the street and shout profanity at the top of your lungs where I live. Where do you live?

[John V]

Certain needs like life, liberty etc. are fundamental human needs - these aren't based on someone's opinion, they are factual - and the fundamental rights derive their legitimacy from these needs which is why they are objective. People who disagree ignore the factual nature of those needs which is why they are wrong.

The existence of slavery and prisons through the ages show that liberty isn't a fundamental human need.

Regarding legitimate human needs, how do you objectively prove that all people have a right to have those needs met?