Russia embraces religious intolerance with draconian blasphemy and anti-gay laws

[DeistPaladin]

Your analogy about the salesman does not prove that moral subjectivism does not equal that though.

My analogy demonstrates that some subjective evaluations are on stronger ground than others based on how well they are supported by the objective facts. Some can make a strong case for their evaluations while others can only offer bare assertions.

In the salesman analogy, he could only say "I've done a good job" because he defines himself as a "good salesman" and since he is his own standard of what a "good salesman" is, he can't be a bad salesman, can he? Now some might call this a contrived definition to suit a desired conclusion and is thus nothing more than a bare assertion allowing him to beg the question but he calls it an "axiom".

I, on the other hand, offer objective data to make a case that he has not been a good salesman. We both present subjective evaluations of his performance but mine is supported by the facts and so mine is stronger than his.

This is why not all subjective evaluations are equal.

Well give me a brief version of their argument(s), or do you not understand it?

Well, I can't give you an entire semester of ethical philosophy in one internet post, but I can offer just a few examples to give you a taste of how academic philosophers evaluate right and wrong.

One theory that I mentioned because it's applicable here is John Rawl's and his ideas of social justice evaluated by what he called a "Veil of Ignorance". Imagine for a moment that you are going to be transported to Russia to play a role of someone there but you don't know who (that "the veil" he references). You could wind up being the gay man who's being oppressed or the atheist who is jailed for speaking out against religion. Since we don't know what role we will end up being cast in, we desire to create a society that is as fair as possible so we don't wind up being the victim.

Creating a straw-man of my position only makes your position look weak

Oh no, that's not a straw man. That is your position, though I say it with mockery. Without big invisible sky daddy setting the rules, anything goes. This is precisely what you argue. Further, you defend it whenever I point out that such rulings from a celestial overlord is neither objective nor absolute nor anything that's helpful to our understanding of morality.

Does everything that exists have rights?

We exist as thinking, feeling, self-aware beings. Our actions toward one another impact our happiness and well-being. Discussions on morality are discussions about our obligations toward one-another as fellow thinking, feeling, self-aware beings.

Not at all, the merits of an argument are independent of the arguer, I can be hypocritical all day long and still be proving points logically; so I will ask again, is it morally wrong to be hypocritical?

Yes, being hypocritical, by definition, is dishonest.

Further, offering a hypocritical argument is offering, by definition, a very weak argument. You can try to argue it's morally right for you to oppress others but not for others to oppress you but you will be on very shaky ground from the get-go.

I knew you were being disingenuous with this one when you didn’t reference a source, the dictionary says nothing about objective having to be independent of all being’s opinions; so something can certainly be objective from man’s perspective but not from God’s.

This is a classic argument from silence and why it's sometimes a fallacy to do so. The dictionary is under no obligation to rule out every single possible contingency that you might think is an exception to the rules but isn't. The dictionary simply says that "objective" is independent of emotions, values or bias. Without any exceptions to this rule spelled out, we can't assume that being an outsider is somehow an exception. The burden of proof is on YOU to explain why this is.

Objective: -not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
- intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book. (Webster’s)

Since God’s moral commandments are external to mankind, and independent of man’s feelings and thoughts they are by definition objective.

It doesn't say "external to mankind". It says "external to the mind" as in "the chair exists even if you imagine that it doesn't". It doesn't say "external to human minds" either.

Yup! God’s moral commandments are not influenced by our feelings and are external to us, therefore they are objective.

Again, the dictionary doesn't say "not influenced by human feelings". It says "not influenced by feelings". God is never spelled out as a special exception to the rule.

Please very specifically show me where in any of those definitions it says “any being”; let’s not be disingenuous here by adding self-serving language to the definitions.

Oh, Sweet Reason!

The burden of proof is on YOU to explain why God should be a special exception to the rule. It's not up to the dictionary to spell out "no exceptions".

in logic a person is completely justified in having axioms and there is nothing fallacious about stating those axioms.

So you use circular reasoning and bare assertions and free yourself from having to justify them by calling them "axioms"?

Here’s another secret for you, it’s not a circular argument because the conclusion (God is good) is not the same as the premise (God is the ultimate standard of goodness).

You've come up with a contrived definition to reach a desired conclusion and then use the definition to prove the conclusion is true.

To map it out:
1. God is the ultimate standard of goodness (contrived definition based on a bare assertion)
2. Therefore, we know God is good (preconceived desired conclusion reached)
3. And so we know that God is good (assertion)
4. Because God is the ultimate standard of goodness (full circle).

As for the omnipotence of God, you’re not using the term omnipotence correctly, an omnipotent being can do all that is logically possible, it is not logically possible for a being to change something that is immutable, so that question was nonsense.

Omnipotence is nonsense. Any time you use words like this, you open yourself up to paradoxes.

Not at all, Jews are the only other religion that believe morals directly derive from the character of their God (the same god by the way).

According to you, perhaps. Other religions might disagree. Regardless, a hypothetical religion that makes a similar claim would have no more authority than yours. This is special pleading to say, "well, in the case of my religion, it's true".

How do you know that might does not make right?

Because appeal to force is a logical fallacy.

This will be funny, how do you know the US Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land (US)?

Because we've decided to act as if it is so. Unfortunately laws only have power when they are enforced, a lesson taught to us by George W Bush, who started the trend of the federal government disregarding the Constitution and certain amendments in our Bill of Rights.

Now, go ahead with your false-equivalency game.