My views on objective morality

[LadyForCamus]

The sky is clearly choked with "lesser spirits".  It must be a much more crowded space than it appears to be.

That is what "clouds" are! I mean, it's just science! [emoji13]

[pocaracas]

Does Him being the creator of the universe make His opinion any less subjective?  What you seem to be saying here is that so long as you are by far the biggest fish in the pond, that imbues your moral opinions with objectivity.  How does that make sense?  What does His 'authority' have to do with whether or not they are, a) merely His opinions or b) objective matters of fact?

Yeah, great point.  God seems to think, feel, and behave pretty similarly to the way we humans think, feel and behave, so what possible reason do we have for thinking he's infallible?

It's what you get when you create a mythology based on the classical Greek and Assyrian mythologies.

[LadyForCamus]

I actually give CL a lot of credit for subjecting herself to this voluntarily without ever resorting to disrespect, pretentiousness, or preaching (and I can't say we have all afforded her the same 100% of the time, myself included). She is definitely one of the good ones IMO! Plus, who doesn't just LOVE a good poop joke? [emoji12]

[JuliaL]

Wait, I've got one.

If god gets to hand out his opinion as fact just because he's in charge...

What happens if christians suddenly found out he's not completely in charge? What if he's only in charge of our bit of reality, and there's a bigger god in charge of him?

Would his "objective morality" now be suspect? If so, why, if it's exactly the same as it was before?

Just FYI, the name of the first meta-god you posit is "Larry."
Needless to say, the second is Moe and the third is Curley.
I have this from personal divine revelation.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

[quote='God of Mr. Hanky' pid='1217487' dateline='1457063664']




(Please don't call me "Your Highness")

Sorry, but how do I address an Empress? :-P

That, btw, may be my boot-licking tongue. Maybe.

[pocaracas]

(Please don't call me "Your Highness")

Sorry, but how do I address an Empress? :-P

That, btw, may be my boot-licking tongue. Maybe.

I'd go with madam Empress.

[LadyForCamus]

Wait, I've got one.

If god gets to hand out his opinion as fact just because he's in charge...

What happens if christians suddenly found out he's not completely in charge? What if he's only in charge of our bit of reality, and there's a bigger god in charge of him?

Would his "objective morality" now be suspect? If so, why, if it's exactly the same as it was before?

Just FYI, the name of the first meta-god you posit is "Larry."
Needless to say, the second is Moe and the third is Curley.
I have this from personal divine revelation.

Uh! Luckyyyyyyy!

[Chas]

OK thanks

How is that different from a dictator who says "might equals right"? What if I don't agree with him?

I'd say a dictator is merely another human being, no different from yourself as a human being. He didn't create the universe. He isn't the ultimate supreme being of everything that exists. He didn't, Himself, create moral laws and design how they work and what they are.

Wow.  Are you even trying?

Since there is no evidence of your god, there is no way it could be the source of anything.  

Pre-supposing the existence of a god is not a particularly interesting or valid argument.

[rexbeccarox]

I totally agree with you on the above. I just think you were assigning thoughts and opinions to C_L that she hasn't actually stated or that she's fully denied, either in this thread or in others. You can lump all Catholics in together if you really want, but their beliefs aren't all exactly the same, like whether Genesis is literal or not. I'm not sure, but I think I remember C_L saying she wouldn't vote against bodily autonomy, but we'd have to ask her to make sure.






(Please don't call me "Your Highness")

Now (and once again) it's you who are straw-manning me. I did not say CL would vote politically against bodily autonomy, but it's a fact that she has stated she believes abortion is wrong. It's also a fact (just ask her) that she has stated she accepts, without cherry-picking, the teachings of the Vatican, of which it can be presumed collects her tithe money. This may not be direct support of anti-abortion laws, but it is certainly a manner of support for every evil thing which bad Catholic political action organizations and bad priests, bishops and cardinals do.

I'm not strawmanning you. You asked this:

CL says she doesn't want to force Catholic Law on other people, and I believe her. But do you think this means she would object to those who do work to undermine bodily autonomy rights every day in places States such as Texas? Naturally, this would be something altogether different than just being quiet about it in your pew, but if you patronize Frankie's church with your money, then you support what he does with it all the same.

(bold mine)

I was just answering what I thought her answer would be. Again: I agree with you on objective morality.

[rexbeccarox]

(Please don't call me "Your Highness")

Sorry, but how do I address an Empress? :-P

That, btw, may be my boot-licking tongue. Maybe.

Meh. My new username is meant to be tongue-in-cheek. You can just call me Becca