Subjective Morality?

[Angrboda]

If I'm getting heated it's because you are behaving in a palpably stupid manner.  You yourself acknowledge that my inability to show or demonstrate that moral facts are objective proves nothing, yet that has been the bulk of your posts for some time now.  When somebody keeps pushing an argument which they know is false, I have good reason to infer that the person is no longer arguing in good faith and is simply continuing to argue simply to save face.  You're being objectively stupid about this and I don't think that's any accident.

The inability of religious people to show that God is objectively doesn't prove that God isn't real, either.  However, their inability to provide evidence to support their claim means that if I don't already hold their belief, then there's little reason for me to do so.

I don't share your belief that morality is objective, unless you want to appeal to a determinist material monism, and claim it's all just brain states or whatever.  But then, we've given up one of the axioms which I outlined as necessary for me to participate in a discussion about morality: the existence of meaningful subjective agency.

At any rate, here are some of the things you've done which I consider typical of religious faith-based argumentation:
1)  Claimed an objective fact, despite having no real objective data or observations (at all) upon which to base your claim.
2)  Attempted to put the BOP on a critic: "You can't PROVE God objective real morality isn't real."
3)  Switched to dirty debating tactics: ad homs and outrage (feigned or otherwise) in lieu of actual support for your claim.

But what I can't understand (and this is sincere) is WHY an atheist would want to claim that there are objective true mores at all.  Isn't one of the best features of atheism the dropping of shackles which bind you to an inflexible perspective, and the realization that we can live perfectly fine through a process of negotiation and discussion about the kinds of values we each would like to see represented in our society?  It feels to me very much like despite being atheist, you have some kind of hunger for moral absolutism.

So I guess we're not going to see you actually back up your argument. I didn't claim an objective fact, you asked for an example. I provided a prospective one for you to demonstrate your argument upon. You've essentially declined and simply keep asserting your dogmatic religious beliefs. I've repeatedly stated that I am not claiming that morals are necessarily objective, only that they may be, and that because of that, you need to show that they aren't. That you are now lying about that fact is yet more evidence that you are not arguing in good faith, including in this last post of yours. Why are you such a liar, benny? And waffling about like you are when challenged on dogma is about as religious as it gets. You didn't even bother responding to the substantive part of my reply.

You're not simply a critic. You've claimed that morals are subjective. That claim carries a burden of proof. Instead of meeting your burden of proof you've repeatedly attempted to fallaciously reverse the burden and place it on me. Everything you've accused me of I've been innocent of and you yourself have been guilty of. You are the biggest fucking hypocrite.

What the hell is dirty about pointing out that a person who pushes an argument that they know to be false is likely not arguing in good faith? Beyond that, I insulted you. That's not an ad hominem argument, and that you're misrepresenting it as such is yet more evidence that you're not arguing in good faith. Outrage? What the fuck is this bullshit? Being disgusted with someone isn't a dirty debate tactic, and that you characterize it as such, especially without reason, is yet more evidence that you're not arguing in good faith. And I didn't insult and make ad hominems in lieu of actual arguments so that's yet another lie of yours. And again, that is actually something that you yourself have just done. When you repeatedly lie, fail to present arguments and instead simply make what is in fact an ad hominem, namely claiming that I'm acting like a religious person, then you definitely have given plenty of evidence that you aren't arguing in good faith.

Stop the bullshit, benny. You're just being an ass because you can't show that morals are any less objective than reality. We do observe objective moral facts. It's called having a conscience and moral intuitions. Even if morals were in some sense subjective, based upon properties of mind, it wouldn't mean that they are predicated upon our feelings. I don't know anyone who is convinced that their moral judgements are just a preference for some things that make them feel good and an aversion to things which make them feel bad. Unless I'm special and exceptional, I don't know anybody who experiences morals this way. People tend to default to trying to argue that morals are subjective because they can't establish an objective basis for morals and are embarrassed by that fact. I strongly suspect this applies to you. In response to your bullshit about me hungering for moral absolutism, that's yet another side of an ad hominem argument, and I don't, so you can take that shit and shove it up your ass sideways.

Regardless, I've made a valid analogy between objective physical facts and objective moral facts. If you can't prove that physical perceptions necessarily correspond to objective physical facts, then requiring me to demonstrate that moral intuitions necessarily correspond to objective moral facts is just special pleading.

Get to work or shut the fuck up.