[split] Are Questions About God Important?

[The Grand Nudger]

Say someone says they think cats are important.  That's them telling you they think that cats exist, too.  Granted, they may be wrong.  Cativism may be false, but they're a cativist all the same.  No?

If someone thinks cats are important they may or may not believe in cats as something that is instantiated into external reality.  Like if someone says dragons are important.  Without further inquiry I wouldn't presume they hold any other position on that than what is explicitly stated.

Which is that there is such a thing as dragons and they are important.......?  Yes.  I can see all manner of ways that this statement is objectively true, too, what's the problem?

This gets more complicated when discussing something more complex like 'objective importance' or 'objective beauty' etc.

In short, no idea what you;re on about.

Sure, objectivity is very complex.  As complex as the facts of a matter - in fact.  In some versions of error theory objectivity is so difficult that while it is or may be possible, it's not humanly attainable. In comparison, subjectivity is dead simple, relativity requires a little more work, and noncognitivism (feeling) is automatic.

That's why people so often attempt to back up their opinions with facts.  "This is my opinion because...."  It's the different types of "because" I'm talking about, the different types of "because" that the thread is about.  A person who ascribes importance to the objective is an objectivist, because their because is a set of alleged facts of the matter that they have explicitly declared as important.

Rightly or wrongly.