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

[DeistPaladin]

What’s your objective data proving he’s not a good salesman?

The fact that he hasn't generated any sales from his efforts. Again, agreed upon definitions (in this case, what a salesman is) are important otherwise we can't have a rational conversation.

Frankly, I'm starting to suspect you're a solipsist. Your arguments seem to dance on that edge (as do most presuppositionalists).

Not all academic philosophers are moral subjectivists.

Correct. Some favor a deontological approach to ethics but even philosphers of this style don't restort to "duh coz big invisible sky-daddy sez so" (or if any do, I hadn't heard of them).

This seems to still hinge on the moral statement “we ought to treat others how we want to be treated.” Until you can demonstrate that that moral statement is in fact true none of this is meaningful. It’s also interesting that he has based his entire theory of morality upon some impossible hypothetical about being transformed into other beings, again not very useful.

Respectively: The Social Contract and thought experiment.

Misrepresenting my position for the purpose of mockery is a straw-man argument (not to mention a fallacious appeal to ridicule). I am in no way logically obligated to address a misrepresentation of my position. You’d be well served by respecting your opponent’s position.

Respect is earned, not a given. Feel free to correct me if I have your stance wrong but this is how you've argued so far. And by the way, ridicule is not necessarily fallacious. Sometimes, it can be used to drive home a point. Like with the ad hominem, it's only a fallacy where it's used in place of an argument, not alongside an argument. I have offered you plenty of reasons why GodWillsIt is not at all meaningful or helpful as far as our understanding of morality is concerned.

You didn’t answer my question, you claimed we have existential rights, meaning these are rights deriving from mere existence; so does everything that exists have existential rights?

Everything that is thinking and feeling and self-aware. Measuring our treatment of such beings and calculating our obligations toward same is what morality concerns.

That doesn’t really answer the question, it merely shifts it; so allow me to play devil’s advocate again, why is it morally wrong to be dishonest?

Because it is generally harmful to others and typically not how we wish to be treated by one another. A good tool to evaluate one's own actions in a way that slices through rationalization is to ask if the other person knew the total truth, how would they feel.

According to what principle of reasoning?

Double standards like the kind you hypothetically suggest require justification. Why is it OK for you to persecute atheists but not for atheists to persecute you?

Just admit it, I caught you adding words to the definition that were not there, it says nothing about “all beings”, rather merely independent of “one’s” opinions.

Why is God a special exception to the rule offered by the dictionary's definition of a word? I'm not the one adding words. You are.

You yourself proved my point when you referred to “objective” units of measurement, which are obviously man-made and therefore not independent of all men.

But the things these man-made units actually measure are not subjective. Distance is the same whether measured in miles or kilometers. Temperature is the same whether measured in Fahrenheit or Celsius. Distance and temperature are objective. How they are measured is a matter of choice but that choice and the means by which these units are agreed upon does not make it any less objective.

God’s moral laws exist outside of man’s mind and will so they are by definition objective.

Do they exist outside the mind of God? If so, God didn't make them. If not, they are subjective, by definition.

The dictionary doesn't specify "human mind".

Objective: -not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

Personal? Is God a human being?

I'm sorry, I didn't see the word "human" anywhere in the definition. Does God not have personal feelings? You keep wanting to make God a special exception.

It's almost like you expected the dictionary to have a section by each definition entitled, "Here is a list of all the special exceptions Statler Waldorf is going to want to assume and we want to specify they don't apply."

Exceptions to a rule are spelled out. You can't assume them if they are not specified to the contrary.

- intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book. (Webster’s)

Yup, God’s commandments and laws exist externally to our minds; they’re therefore objective to our minds.

Does God not have a mind? Does God not have thoughts or feelings?

But God’s laws and commandments exist external to human’s minds, so they are therefore objective to our minds. You’re only proving my point.

Where does the dictionary specify "human minds"?

Either something is objective or it isn't. There is no such thing as "objective to this being and subjective to that being".

Nope, it says personal feelings, and God is not a human being.

Wouldn't God have personal feelings?

What about aliens to earth, hypothetically? If aliens invaded earth and imposed laws upon us, would their laws suddenly be magically transformed into "objective rules", since the beings that made them aren't human? Would these aliens not have minds and personal feelings?

I am not sure why you’re being so crazy about this point, whether you want to call them objective or not God’s laws are still completely independent of your will and desires and there’s nothing you can do to change that.

You're starting to project here and the fact that you want to go to "well, it doesn't matter because sky daddy's gonna beat you up no matter what you argue" shows you, on some level, know you're losing the argument.

Yes, God is the ultimate standard of goodness, and no it is not a bare assertion because I have reasons for accepting it as true.

Such as?

No such religion exists, and if one did they would end up with Yahweh and would just be calling Him by a different name, which is still Yahweh.

The Yahweh you mention is not one god but many. Michael Moore and Fred Phelps both worship the same Yahweh-Jesus god and yet I think it's fair to call these two different gods with two different ideas on moral and social justice. Jesus is a liberal or conservative, a capitalist or a socialist or whatever you want him to be. Christians, like anyone else, create a god based on their own glorified self-reflection and use that to justify believing and doing the things they do anyway.

This is yet another problem with the GodWillsIt approach to understanding morality. What does "God" will again? Depends who you ask. God never seems to communicate that personally. Even the Bible contains no "Book of Jesus". It's always human beings who convey "God's wishes".

And you think that's not true of every other religion? You think the other gods by other names don't offer commandments or express their will on how we should behave?

The fact is you can't offer one shred of evidence that your interpretation of the will of Yahweh-Jesus is any more accurate than Micheal Moore or Fred Phelps. Both these people can quote the Bible too and they offer no more and no less evidence of divine insight than you.

Neither can you prove that Yahweh-Jesus is the "One True God". Muslims offer just as much evidence as you do for the existence of Allah (which is to say, none).

You can slap the label "axiom" on your bare assertions and circular reasoning and use the Tu Quoque that "oh yeah, well you have them too" but you can't escape the fact that you're pulling stuff out of your butt and you have no evidence to back up any of what you are claiming.

Because appeal to force is a logical fallacy.

Logic deals with truth, not what is right and wrong.

I don't know of any scenario where what is morally right is also logically absurd. Can you map out any for me?

But if you act as if it is not you get thrown into prison; under what authority are they justified in doing so?

Predictably, you confuse legality with morality.