(July 1, 2017 at 8:55 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:(July 1, 2017 at 6:56 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Ok.... What you are describing still doesn't make it subjective ontologically. This could be a problem with equating objective with absolute, or subjective with relative. For instance if we are talking about hair color of a particular person. The color of the hair is objective. It does not change even if you and I disagree on what that color is. It is also relative, as it depends on the person, that we are talking about.
Why are you talking about hair? I'm talking about moral subjectivity. Do you really not grasp that?
If you are using different value judgements for the same act based on who the actor is, you are practicing moral relativity. This horseshit about ontology is irrelevant.
Try extrapolating it out to different nations and maybe that will help, and remove god from the equation (although Israeli schoolchildren were tested in this way and said it wasn't wrong for a god-backed army to do the same thing as a Chinese army that they did consider wrong). Is it wrong for X nation to gas the minority population that disagrees with the ruling party, but not for Y nation to do the same? If not then there's no way to justify any other party's immunity to this. Distinctions destroy the entire argument.
Religions were invented to impress and dupe illiterate, superstitious stone-age peasants. So in this modern, enlightened age of information, what's your excuse? Or are you saying with all your advantages, you were still tricked as easily as those early humans?
---
There is no better way to convey the least amount of information in the greatest amount of words than to try explaining your religious views.
---
There is no better way to convey the least amount of information in the greatest amount of words than to try explaining your religious views.
