List of reasons to believe God exists?

[The Grand Nudger]

What?!?! The very crux of the debate is the "rights" of the mother. The baby has no rights OR has rights at a certain number of weeks--depending on jurisdiction = subjective. 

Additionally, the babies rights can then be set aside if other subjective conditions are met--which vary wildly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction (like the mental health of the mother).  

That you consider clinical diagnosis of mental disorder a subjective criteria demonstrates your complete ignorance of the terms use or application, yet again.

What?!?!? Setting aside that Planned Parenthood considers any ban to be unconstitutional (read "unborn baby has no rights"), third-trimester abortions happen all the time in many jurisdictions. The baby born at 3pm could have been killed right up to delivery. At 3:10, sitting in the incubator, it would be murder to kill it. Why? What magically happened in those minutes to endow rights to the baby that is not subjective? Location? 

More disingenuity , and yet another demonstration that you are incapable of competently employing the term, regardless of how many times you type it.  

Ah, but there is no difference from the baby's perspective--just a different person's intent. Subjective

Is the third time the charm or something?  

Differing legality in different jurisdictions is not the same as morally right or wrong, but it surely is a perfect example that the morality of abortion is highly subjective. 

To be a perfect example strongly implies that it's an example at all..which it isn't...so?  

Therefore, your harm avoidance framework as a basis of morality is NOT objective. Christian morality is much more objective because we can start with the premise the all human life has intrinsic value because we were made in the image of God with purpose. Talking about past failures is a epistemic problem not whether there is an objective standard or not.

Above, you explicitly confirm my earlier comments regarding your misapprehension.  Not only is the entire subject of god as un-objective as any subject can get...even if there were a god, which did create you for some purpose, in it's image...whatever value that circumscribes would not be intrinsic value unless it were valuable in some meaningful sense wholly apart from your creation, gods purpose, and his image.  You've managed to be wrong and internally inconsistent.  Again...a discussion could be had...but not with you.  You don't understand the terms, and we have no common point from which to successfully communicate.

You are presenting me with the articles of your faith, not a demonstration that any given moral position is subjective..or that your own (or gods) are objective. If you want to discuss any objective moral propositions about this or any other subject,..you're going to need to present facts...not only facts in support of your own position..but facts concerning the positions of others - not the amateurish shit up above. Doing so...conveniently, will demonstrate that even in disagreement everyone is attempting to refer to some relevant fact of the matter...which is my contention, and I'll remind you from the outset that "my god said/did this or that" is fundamentally irrelevant to our laws..but them's the breaks.

Your blowing up the thread with abortion bullshit left you with all of your work ahead of you, and merely reinforced my initial comments. We got to watch people disagree over what they considered to be relevant facts of the matter. It just so happens that your "god" isn't one of them on any level. The argument for legality is doa on grounds of god..and the argument for morality either stands or falls without any need of reference -to- god.

[henryp]

I just said I think women should be able to murder babies, and he didn't even try to argue with me.  Didn't even give it a whirl. That your half-ass ideas on life struggle to deal with his half-ass ideas on life seems like more of a 'having half-ass ideas" problem, than the fact my views make all his arguments irrelevant.

The arguments are irrelevant by default. You're just making them feel more validated in their absurd beliefs.

Theist:  Atheist's ideas are dumb.  Here's some fairly legitimate reasons why.
Atheist: Half-hearted defense of dumb ideas quickly transitions into Yeah but, here's some fairly legitimate reasons why YOUR ideas are dumb.  

You're both right.  Both your ideas are dumb.  

None of you are validating anything.  You just pretend that because the other person's ideas are dumb, that somehow means yours aren't.  But they are.  They're all absurd.

[GrandizerII]

The arguments are irrelevant by default. You're just making them feel more validated in their absurd beliefs.

Theist:  Atheist's ideas are dumb.  Here's some fairly legitimate reasons why.
Atheist: Half-hearted defense of dumb ideas quickly transitions into Yeah but, here's some fairly legitimate reasons why YOUR ideas are dumb.  

You're both right.  Both your ideas are dumb.  

None of you are validating anything.  You just pretend that because the other person's ideas are dumb, that somehow means yours aren't.  But they are.  They're all absurd.

I do the best I can to make sure I don't hold absurd ideas. Perhaps, then, you can help me out? What are the absurd ideas I hold?

[Jehanne]

The Catholic Church used to teach that aborted fetuses were consigned to the Limbo of the Children. The Church has changed its (her) mind on that one.

[Amarok]

Therefore, your harm avoidance framework as a basis of morality is NOT objective. Christian morality is much more objective because we can start with the premise the all human life has intrinsic value because we were made in the image of God with purpose

Yes harm based morality is Objective no matter how much you assert otherwise. And no being some beings cogs does not make people objectively valuable .

[henryp]

Therefore, your harm avoidance framework as a basis of morality is NOT objective. Christian morality is much more objective because we can start with the premise the all human life has intrinsic value because we were made in the image of God with purpose

Yes harm based morality is Objective no matter how much you assert otherwise. And no being some beings cogs does not make people objectively valuable .

Grandizer, this is absurd.  Do you agree with this?

[The Grand Nudger]

Oh it might make them objectively valuable...-if- you can demonstrate that the being in question exists and values them (LOL)....but that won't make them intrinsically valuable.  

Intrinsic value is a value that belongs wholly and essentially to the object in question.  This is an objection that believers fully comprehend until they start talking god..at which point - as with the disparity between what is natural and what is right, they develop selective amnesia.  

[SteveII]

What?!?! The very crux of the debate is the "rights" of the mother. The baby has no rights OR has rights at a certain number of weeks--depending on jurisdiction = subjective. 

Additionally, the babies rights can then be set aside if other subjective conditions are met--which vary wildly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction (like the mental health of the mother).  

That you consider clinical diagnosis of mental disorder a subjective criteria demonstrates your complete ignorance of the terms use or application, yet again.

What?!?!? Setting aside that Planned Parenthood considers any ban to be unconstitutional (read "unborn baby has no rights"), third-trimester abortions happen all the time in many jurisdictions. The baby born at 3pm could have been killed right up to delivery. At 3:10, sitting in the incubator, it would be murder to kill it. Why? What magically happened in those minutes to endow rights to the baby that is not subjective? Location? 

More disingenuity , and yet another demonstration that you are incapable of competently employing the term, regardless of how many times you type it.  

Ah, but there is no difference from the baby's perspective--just a different person's intent. Subjective

Is the third time the charm or something?  

Differing legality in different jurisdictions is not the same as morally right or wrong, but it surely is a perfect example that the morality of abortion is highly subjective. 

To be a perfect example strongly implies that it's an example at all..which it isn't...so?  

Therefore, your harm avoidance framework as a basis of morality is NOT objective. Christian morality is much more objective because we can start with the premise the all human life has intrinsic value because we were made in the image of God with purpose. Talking about past failures is a epistemic problem not whether there is an objective standard or not.

Above, you explicitly confirm my earlier comments regarding your misapprehension.  Not only is the entire subject of god as un-objective as any subject can get...even if there were a god, which did create you for some purpose, in it's image...whatever value that circumscribes would not be intrinsic value unless it were valuable in some meaningful sense wholly apart from your creation, gods purpose, and his image.  You've managed to be wrong and internally inconsistent.  Again...a discussion could be had...but not with you.  You don't understand the terms, and we have no common point from which to successfully communicate.

You are presenting me with the articles of your faith, not a demonstration that any given moral position is subjective..or that your own (or gods) are objective.  If you want to discuss any objective moral propositions about this or any other subject,..you're going to need to present facts...not only facts in support of your own position..but facts concerning the positions of others - not the amateurish shit up above.  Doing so...conveniently, will demonstrate that even in disagreement everyone is attempting to refer to some relevant fact of the matter...which is my contention, and I'll remind you from the outset that "my god said/did this or that" is fundamentally irrelevant to our laws..but them's the breaks.

Your blowing up the thread with abortion bullshit left you with all of your work ahead of you, and merely reinforced my initial comments.  We got to watch people disagree over what they considered to be relevant facts of the matter.  It just so happens that your "god" isn't one of them on any level.  The argument for legality is doa on grounds of god..and the argument for morality either stands or falls without any need of reference -to- god.

So you continue now for two posts attacking the objectivity of my morality That's a classic straw man--finding something irrelevant that you think you have a stronger argument for. Whatever your opinion on my morality has nothing to do with whether your's is subjective. We don't need a discussion (that apparently I am not equipped to have). There is no amount of nuance you can inject into this issue that will escape the essential subjectivity of the pro-abortion position. 

I didn't blow up the thread. Your nonsense about how atheists can have objective morality blew up the thread when it is clearly impossible and atheist philosophers for centuries have been telling you why.

[Amarok]

Oh it might make them objectively valuable...-if- you can demonstrate that the being in question exists and values them (LOL)....but that won't make them intrinsically valuable.  

Intrinsic value is a value that belongs wholly and essentially to the object in question.  This is an objection that believers fully comprehend until they start talking god..at which point - as with the disparity between what is natural and what is right, they develop selective amnesia.  

I suppose .

---

Yes harm based morality is Objective no matter how much you assert otherwise. And no being some beings cogs does not make people objectively valuable .

Grandizer, this is absurd.  Do you agree with this?

Maybe instead of calling it absurd . you could do something constructive .

[The Grand Nudger]

So you continue now for two posts attacking the objectivity of my morality That's a classic straw man--finding something irrelevant that you think you have a stronger argument for. Whatever your opinion on my morality has nothing to do with whether your's is subjective. We don't need a discussion (that apparently I am not equipped to have). There is no amount of nuance you can inject into this issue that will escape the essential subjectivity of the pro-abortion position. 

I've merely pointed out that the moral foundation you expressed is not an objective moral foundation by definition, and that it does not refer to intrinsic value by definition.   

Repeatedly asserting that some position is subjective will not demonstrate that it is so.  You appear to be obsessed with the meaningless subjectivity of everyone having an opinion.  Well, sure, everyone has an opinion, they don;t all agree..but which opinions are wrong..and why?  Anyone who engages in this discussion in the context of morality is discussing an objective moral appraisal.

I didn't blow up the thread. Your nonsense about how atheists can have objective morality blew up the thread when it is clearly impossible and atheist philosophers for centuries have been telling you why.

-I posted a fairly large comment on objective morality..and your response was "Whatabout abortion".  C'mon...at least try.  Atheist philosophers (and "atheist philosophies) are in the majority among moral realists.  I don't know why you believe that they've been telling us that it's impossible.  Here again you find yourself factually..which is to say, objectively....wrong.

While moral realism as a subset has left the god proposition behind as uneccessary, that doesn't mean that moral realism is unavailable to you, as a believer.  Frankly, if something truly is objectively wrong..it's objectively wrong regardless of whether or not there is a god..and I'm having trouble understanding why we can't agree to that, between you and I?  

If we can't agree to that..which of us is actually the moral realist.....?  Food for thought....the contention that, in the absence of god, there is no objective morality, is nothing more or les than the contention that..in the absence of god, there are no facts. How's -that- for an absurd belief? Can we agree to the existence of facts? If we can't...what's the point in discussing anything? If you have to establish god before you can establish facts but you can't establish god without establishing facts...how do you propose to go about doing that for god or facts, moral or otherwise?

I think we can probably discuss the matter unencumbered, personally.