RE: One sentence that throws the problem of evil out of the window.
November 7, 2017 at 6:40 pm
(This post was last modified: November 7, 2017 at 6:49 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
(November 7, 2017 at 6:31 pm)Mathilda Wrote: OK well at least I know what you are getting at now.Me thinking about shit is overthinking by reference to the average christer by default. They want to talk to us about pixies. Sometimes, I want a more substantive discussion.
Personally I think that this is overthinking it. The discussion is about whether morality is objective or subjective and it's very easy to take it out of scope. These are common place terms, not strict scientific definitions. But as with anything philosophical, disagreement always seems to come when people apply a different scope for the definitions that they use. My yardstick is whether a definition is useful. I am not particularly interested in arguing semantics and fleshing out at what point a concept is no longer useful.
Quote:The scope we're arguing here is waaay beyond the kind of debate about subjective vs objective morality that religionists think about. They seem to have some sort of idea of some ethereal force that exists as part of some cosmic battle of good vs evil. They can't ever measure evil or even have a clear concept of what it could possibly be. Like a soul, a god or free will, it's a vague undefinable concept that they can believe in because it can't be tested. Yet while advocating an objective morality, theists can only ever pass judgement on the morality of an action based on their own neural conditioning. It's that which i object to, not to the extent of which objective facts rely on neural processing.All of those things are the reasons that their moral systems are not objective ones, if objective moral systems exist in the first place. Believers are, easily, the -worst- advocates of objective morality. Objective moral theory, as a discipline in philosophy..is currently crammed full of atheists, lol. They're the ones writings the textbooks and submitting their work for review. Unsurprising, really:
Any attempt at a god-based objective moral theory fails at the first step...demonstration of it's fundamental unit of measurement. God. Even if they could demonstrate that (and I wouldn't hold my breath) all of their work would still be ahead of them...as then they have the herculean task of transforming the subjectivity of god as lawgiver into an objective moral statement without simultaneously eradicating any need or use for god in their theory.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!