Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[R00tKiT]

Yes, ofc divine command theory exists.  It's an explicitly subjectivist moral theory.  That right and wrong are determined by some subjects edicts.  That the divine king never changes his mind doesn't change what that moral system is.  Unchanging and eternally subjective. 

Unchanging and eternally subjective Are you out of your mind?

If we were talking about a human king, he would be a changing subject, thus subjective. But God is unchanging .. so ?
Overall, I think you have some homework to do. Subjective simply means that the set of moral judgments differs for each individual. Your erroneous definition of subjectivity as refering to a subject is absolutely wrong if the subject is God. The latter word, even if stripped of any religious connotation, still means the only real necessary being, a fixed, unchanging reference. If it is unchanging, it's objective. That's what objective means.

If something is wrong and unchanging, it will always be wrong. 

You should be more concerned of the possibility of it being always right?

Yes, I know you said that.  You can reject moral facts if you like - I'm not trying to convince you that they exist.  If you do reject moral facts, though, you can't avail yourself of them.  Things have objective tags™ to differentiate them from the subjective.  Both realism and subjectivism are cognitivist theories...they differ only in what set of true propositions are morally relevant.  

Do you think that it might be the case that you're hard pressed to state any bad-making property of rape on account of your own ignorance?  Ignorance about rape or about bad-making properties?  Or is this just preening..and in point of actual fact, in mere reality, it;s not hard for you to think of bad-making properties to rape at all? 

I see you didn't give up your garbage attitude of ad hominems, insulting people, beliefs , which already gives me a pretty solid idea of your moral system ... Here's the thing : I gave you a clear scenario where the drugged victim isn't bothered at all by the rape, she won't remember it, she won't be traumatised for life, she won't get pregnant, nothing bad, she was actually sexually aroused by the rape, and the rapist too, she was even euphorically happy. Their overall happiness increased during the act.

Now based on your garbage system : squeeze the bad making property in this scenario now, or shut up forever.

This only poses a restatement of the question.  If fidelity is implicitly good and infidelity..implicitly bad...why is fidelity good?  Again, any fact that you might refer to? Above, you refer to consequences surrounding the partners mental state.  Infidelity is bad because it hurts people.  Harm, here again.  If infidelity didn't harm the partner...say in the case of a healthy open marriage - then it would lack that bad-making property.  It wouldn't be wrong. 

And that's why you should keep your whorish morality, together with your bad-marking property system, to yourself. That's why you, specifically, should mindlessly follow orders with regards to killing, rape, and any whorish behavior. That's why we prefer holy books telling women not to open their legs to strangers, instead of listening to your fucked up rationalization of what sluts decide to do behind their husbands. That's why we don't welcome your "western values" much, despite the nebulous philosophy surrounding them that allows ideas like Peter Singer's, or yours, to have credit. 

You being okay with infidelity if it doesn't harm the partner is strictly equivalent to you being okay with rape if the victim can't feel the harm in any way. Good luck now with the your bad-making properties.

This is all massively hilarious in the context of your religion, with it's one sided plural marriage and sex slaves.

 
You being okay with having more than one slut, in addition to the slutty wife who accepted what you call a "healthy open marriage", really should shut your mouth with regards to polygamy.

assume that killing isaac would have been the right thing to do, since gods say so is the good-making property.  I still couldn't do it.  I would refuse to kill my son no matter who asked.  I would refuse to kill my son even if he were some cartoon villain literally worthy of death.  It will always be a bad bet..to bet on me..killing my son.

It's okay if you can't do it, I myself will never be able to do it. But we would be wrong.

Are there things you wouldn;t do even if god told you not to..or does this order following mentality of yours have no floor?

Of course there are. I would be nevertheless wrong if I didn't do them. If god is really god, that is, the absolute parent with complete information, it would be the very definition of stupid to go against his orders, and even more stupid is to rationalize the latter. We rationalize things using our 1300-1400 grams brain, I don't get how atheists get so confident in their cognitive prowess when it comes to ethics, politics, etc. If your senses can deceive you, so can your brain, and your ancestors' brains, and the most brilliant moral philosophers' brains. It's only us.  And if we cannot accept some absolute guidance at least with basic moral issues, we would allow for too many fucked up moral systems to gain ground.

[The Grand Nudger]

Unchanging and eternally subjective Are you out of your mind?

I told you to research these terms pages ago.  The term objective refers to facts independent of any given subject, not things that never change.  

An objective position on any matter changes as often as the facts of the matter do.  It has to, in order to be an objective position.  

You should be more concerned of the possibility of it being always right?

Why?  I'm merely explaining to you how and why eternalism is not interchangeable with realism.  

I see you didn't give up your garbage attitude of ad hominems, insulting people, beliefs , which already gives me a pretty solid idea of your moral system ... Here's the thing : I gave you a clear scenario where the drugged victim isn't bothered at all by the rape, she won't remember it, she won't be traumatised for life, she won't get pregnant, nothing bad, she was actually sexually aroused by the rape, and the rapist too, she was even euphorically happy. Their overall happiness increased during the act.

Now based on your garbage system : squeeze the bad making property in this scenario now, or shut up forever.

It would be an ad hom if I claimed that you were wrong because you're dumb.  Not if I'm just flat out telling you that you are dumb..but also explaining exactly why and how you've been wrong about all of this from the get go.  

-and with that, you managed to add another thing to the pile of what you get wrong.

My "garbage system" is that there are moral facts.  Things truly right and wrong.  Do you disagree?  It's still a fact that raping people is harmful.  Drugging them beforehand doesn't make it less or not harmful..less, or not rape.  That's a rather clumsy subjectivist objection you've got there.  

The GHB defense.......and you think that you could take an atheist to task for their moral positions...with that?

You being okay with infidelity if it doesn't harm the partner is strictly equivalent to you being okay with rape if the victim can't feel the harm in any way. Good luck now with the your bad-making properties.

Who said I was okay with it?  I'm merely pointing out that a thing cannot be rationally contended to be wrong if it doesn't contain wrong-making properties, whatever those are.  Do you disagree?  Do you think that an act which contains no bad-making properties can still be wrong?  

 You being okay with having more than one slut, in addition to the slutty wife who accepted what you call a "healthy open marriage", really should shut your mouth with regards to polygamy.

Just straight up babbling out your own god based bigotries at this point, huh.  Celebrated my 14th anniversary this year..with my one wife, who doesn't seem to need any outside peen...lol.  You flew off the handle on account of me pointing out that it's incoherent to claim that some x is bad if it lacks a bad-making property.  

You're an idiot.
(see how that's not an ad hom, just a insult which happens to be true?)

It's okay if you can't do it, I myself will never be able to do it. But we would be wrong.

Exactly....  but if you say so, then any religion or "moral system" which contends that refusing to kill my son on the say so of some ghost is wrong isn't something I'd be interested in.   No more so than I would be interested in killing one child to privilege another - even if we assumed their argument were true.  

This is why I don't need an argument against stingers contention, or an argument against your bullshit about djinn...and why I certainly don't need to throw away my moral system on account of the pure existence of dipshits like you or dire circumstances like stingers. Neither is compelling or relevant to me, and there's nothing I can do about being on the "wrong" side of either issue, by his or your own metrics.

It's just who I am. Perpetually uninterested..you might even say unchanging....on the issues of killing kids for some willowy greater good or joining abhorrent religions.

like a common bad person..I guess.

Of course there are. I would be nevertheless wrong if I didn't do them. If god is really god, that is, the absolute parent with complete information, it would be the very definition of stupid to go against his orders, and even more stupid is  to rationalize the latter. We rationalize things using our 1300-1400 grams brain, I don't get how atheists get so confident in their cognitive prowess when it comes to ethics, politics, etc. If your senses can deceive you, so can your brain, and your ancestors' brains, and the most brilliant moral philosophers' brains. It's only us.  And if we cannot accept some absolute guidance at least with basic moral issues, we would allow for too many fucked up moral systems to gain ground.

Excellent.  At least there's that.  If you got food poisoning and thought god told you to do some shit, you might not do it.  This is the best I could hope for from a moral subjectivist, as far as practical outcomes of our moral systems are concerned.  As for the rest, you either think that you're capable of rational thought, or you don't.  I can't make you feel more competent than you do...and you may actually have reason to judge your own competency by the contents of these posts.  

So, what's the score, do you reject moral facts and that man is capable of reason?

[The Grand Nudger]

That question above helps to clarify alot, btw. If I were a person who rejected moral facts and doubted mans ability to ascertain them, I would be an error theorist in every conceivable way. Subjectivism, relativism, nihilism, non cognitivism..all error theories, all directly opposed to moral realism, all of which you've employed as objections.

When you asked, in effect, how atheists could "do morality"... you would have been asking from a point of actual ignorance. As in you have no way of doing it, and acknowledge that. This would explain your preference for order taking over moral agency entirely.

You may have been unclear on the terms, or on what type of moral proposition you were offering...but if these are things that you believe, things that accurately describe your appraisal of the moral field, then you should probably be comfortable with them. If you're a committed error theorist who counts on god to give you the answers to the test, then this is simply what you believe..even if the term for that is something you've been taught to reject.

You're a subjectivist, I'm a realist. You "do morality" by taking orders from a privileged authority, I "do morality" by considering facts through rational inference. This is the whole answer to your underlying question. There isn't anything else to it. That's how I do it. That's how any atheist can do it. That's how any theist can do it.

[R00tKiT]

My "garbage system" is that there are moral facts.  Things truly right and wrong.  Do you disagree? 

Yeah, sure I do. And your moral facts led you to say, with every ounce of your intellect, that according to your moral realism : infidelity wouldn't be wrong. That's you, your moral realism, the combined product of your upbringing, readings, experience, and cognitive abilities couldn't point out what is horribly wrong with being infidel if no explicit harm is done.

It's still a fact that raping people is harmful.  Drugging them beforehand doesn't make it less or not harmful..less, or not rape.  That's a rather clumsy subjectivist objection you've got there. 

I don't care if it's clumsy, or if it doesn't suit your euphorical morality that fails miserably when we change examples. Drugging the victim beforehand effectively removes the physical AND psychological harm, and you're not left with much to back up your assertion : it's a fact that rape is bla bla. That's the theoretical cost of atheism, rejecting god, claiming we got it all by science : you have no background, no references, all you have is the hope of figuring out some internally consistent *moral system* then play around and reshape the system through trial and error, no matter how immoral the errors turn out to be. You made it, you turned ethics into a playground, thanks to your moral realism.

Who said I was okay with it?  I'm merely pointing out that a thing cannot be rationally contended to be wrong if it doesn't contain wrong-making properties, whatever those are.  Do you disagree?  Do you think that an act which contains no bad-making properties can still be wrong? 

I am not a moral realist, I think it can still be wrong with the absence of these properties. You are endorsing moral realism, so if you can't find something wrong - as defined in your system - in infidelitey, it renders the act perfectly moral and sweet in your worldview. You may not be **okay** with it, whatever the hell "okay" is supposed to mean, but that's irrelevant. If you don't want to follow any order, you better build the whole system you're advocating for. 

Neither is compelling or relevant to me, and there's nothing I can do about being on the "wrong" side of either issue, by his or your own metrics.  

It's just who I am.  Perpetually uninterested..you might even say unchanging....on the issues of killing kids for some willowy greater good or joining abhorrent religions.

You seem to have some delusion that we're playing with darts when it comes to morality. Just make sure you got it right with regard to afterlife not existing, being held accountable for what you're saying, doing, advocating ...

In the end, you simply abide by your local legal system, and adjust your retarded moral system accordingly, to appear cool and solid when writing in these forums. A moral system which, as I made it clear, doesn't and can't behave well when put into test. In the end, you'll do what everybody around you does, you'll be okay with legalizing homosexuality, prostitution, "healthy open marriages", and more . You're simply part of the slutty, secularized western system, nothing more, nothing moral.

It's understandable that, after every miserable failure of yours to patch theoretical holes in your atheism, you'll pull the 'I don't care' card. That's understandable because you think you won't be held accountable for that. Just make sure you got that last part right.

Excellent.  At least there's that.  If you got food poisoning and thought god told you to do some shit, you might not do it.  This is the best I could hope for from a moral subjectivist, as far as practical outcomes of our moral systems are concerned.  As for the rest, you either think that you're capable of rational thought, or you don't.  I can't make you feel more competent than you do...and you may actually have reason to judge your own competency by the contents of these posts.  

So, what's the score, do you reject moral facts and that man is capable of reason?

I reject neither, I just happen to have different, more coherent definitions of what moral facts are, and why they are facts. It just seems to me that you think you're living in a universe immune from a possible god / a possible afterlife. I suggest you re-ead a very important sentence I wrote to you : if your senses can easily deceive you, so can your rational thought with regard to ethics, and the stinky, unethical products of your rational thought.

[The Grand Nudger]

My "garbage system" is that there are moral facts.  Things truly right and wrong.  Do you disagree? 

Yeah, sure I do. And your moral facts led you to say, with every ounce of your intellect, that according to your moral realism : infidelity wouldn't be wrong. That's you, your moral realism, the combined product of your upbringing, readings, experience, and cognitive abilities couldn't point out what is horribly wrong with being infidel if no explicit harm is done.

You can't seem to decide.  Here at the beginning you say that you do disagree, but by the end you say that you don't.  There either are..or there aren't... moral facts.  It really is one or the other.  

It's true, though, that moral realism contends that things simply can't be wrong without some bad-making property.  It was actually your explanation for why infidelity could be bad that lead to the rational conclusion that it may not be.  Open relationships don't work for me...and I doubt that you've had pussy since pussy had you...but some people simply aren't harmed by it, and it makes little sense to call it wrong if no one is being harmed.

I don't care if it's clumsy, or if it doesn't suit your euphorical morality that fails miserably when we change examples. Drugging the victim beforehand effectively removes the physical AND psychological harm, and you're not left with much to back up your assertion : it's a fact that rape is bla bla. That's the theoretical cost of atheism, rejecting god, claiming we got it all by science : you have no background, no references, all you have is the hope of figuring out some internally consistent *moral system* then play around and reshape the system through trial and error, no matter how immoral the errors turn out to be. You made it, you turned ethics into a playground, thanks to your moral realism.

If that's what you think, that drugging a girl before raping her makes it somehow less or not wrong - then what can I say?  This has literally nothing to do with atheism, lol.  The existence of moral facts doesn't mean that everyone will agree on them.

I am not a moral realist, I think it can still be wrong with the absence of these properties. You are endorsing moral realism, so if you can't find something wrong - as defined in your system - in infidelitey, it renders the act perfectly moral and sweet in your worldview. You may not be **okay** with it, whatever the hell "okay" is supposed to mean, but that's irrelevant. If you don't want to follow any order, you better build the whole system you're advocating for. 

-and gl explaining what makes something bad..in the absence of bad-making properties, if you really believe this.

The beauty of moral realism..and, really, any rational moral system - is that it doesn't need to be "built".  We assess things as they come, by reference to relevant facts and valid inferences in coherent propositions.  

You seem to have some delusion that we're playing with darts when it comes to morality. Just make sure you got it right with regard to afterlife not existing, being held accountable for what you're saying, doing, advocating ...

...and now you're the dipshit threatening me with hell..as though I believed in hell, or it would matter if I believed in hell.  I don't, and it doesn't.  I can only tell you this so many times in so many ways.  If doing the right thing gets me sent to hell..I guess that's where I'm going. If doing the wrong thing gets me into heaven..I'll never make it in. There's really nothing I can do about either situation..nothing I can do to prevent some silly god from doing what it wants.

I have a moral system....it's not a bid to get an all expenses vacay to the land of liquor rivers and cherubic sex dolls. I can save you alot of trouble. Assume that I'm going to hell. So what? The question of an acts moral status is a question about that act, not about where my soul might one day end up.

In the end, you simply abide by your local legal system, and adjust your retarded moral system accordingly, to appear cool and solid when writing in these forums. A moral system which, as I made it clear, doesn't and can't behave well when put into test. In the end, you'll do what everybody around you does, you'll be okay with legalizing homosexuality, prostitution, "healthy open marriages", and more . You're simply part of the slutty, secularized western system, nothing more, nothing moral.

It's understandable that, after every miserable failure of yours to patch theoretical holes in your atheism, you'll pull the 'I don't care' card. That's understandable because you think you won't be held accountable for that. Just make sure you got that last part right.

I've managed to trudge through my turgid existence without becoming a child molesting warlord.  I don't draw a blank as to why rape is bad or imagine that drugging the victim makes it better.   

Seems to be working well enough for me.  

I reject neither, I just happen to have different, more coherent definitions of what moral facts are, and why they are facts. It just seems to me that you think you're living in a universe immune from a possible god / a possible afterlife. I suggest you re-ead a very important sentence I wrote to you : if your senses can easily deceive you, so can your rational thought with regard to ethics, and the stinky, unethical products of your rational thought.

If you don't reject moral facts, or mans ability to reason..then you don't object to my moral system at all.  Your god musings are your own.  I..don't...care.

In a universe with or without a god, the bad things are bad and the good things are good.  Regardless of what a god tells me to do (or not to do) in any universe, the thing is either good or bad on objective grounds.  Neither gods existence or gods say so are good or bad making properties of any x.

I want you to take a breath here and realize that you're reduced to threatening me...for moral realism...lol.  For proposing that there are moral facts.  For contending that there are things that are truly right, and truly wrong.  Is that supposed to make me join the club?  No, OFC not, it's yet another immoral feather in the islamic cap.  

Good fucking job.

[R00tKiT]

You can't seem to decide.  Here at the beginning you say that you do disagree, but by the end you say that you don't.  There either are..or there aren't... moral facts.  It really is one or the other. 

I think I didn't frame that correctly. There are true moral statements out there, but we disagee on which ones. And saying that moral realism = there are moral facts isn't, I think, correct. The word fact means, to me, a true logical statement, that could or couldn't be confirmed by external reality.

It's true, though, that moral realism contends that things simply can't be wrong without some bad-making property.  It was actually your explanation for why infidelity could be bad that lead to the rational conclusion that it may not be.  Open relationships don't work for me...and I doubt that you've had pussy since pussy had you...but some people simply aren't harmed by it, and it makes little sense to call it wrong if no one is being harmed.

Actually, if we don't call something like infidelity wrong, obligations of marriage will be taken more lightly than if there was a clear condemnation. Your moral realism implies that, if no one is harmed at the scene, it's open season for infidelity. Namely, it doesn't care much about the long term consequences, or how it changes people's cultural view of marriage, or any other commited relationship.

If that's what you think, that drugging a girl before raping her makes it somehow less or not wrong - then what can I say?  This has literally nothing to do with atheism, lol.  The existence of moral facts doesn't mean that everyone will agree on them.

It's a consequence of atheism. I am pointing out to scenarios where the optimal moral decision seems to be a simple imperative, without overthinking. And I don't get why you're so allergic to following orders, it's trivial to include a set of axioms in any moral system (don't kill, don't rape, etc.) that, although unfounded, wouldn't warrant religion.

...and now you're the dipshit threatening me with hell..as though I believed in hell, or it would matter if I believed in hell.  I don't, and it doesn't.  I can only tell you this so many times in so many ways.  If doing the right thing gets me sent to hell..I guess that's where I'm going.  If doing the wrong thing gets me into heaven..I'll never make it in.  There's really nothing I can do about either situation..nothing I can do to prevent some silly god from doing what it wants.  

I have a moral system....it's not a bid to get an all expenses vacay to the land of liquor rivers and cherubic sex dolls.  I can save you alot of trouble.  Assume that I'm going to hell.  So what?  The question of an acts moral status is a question about that act, not about where my soul might one day end up.

I didn't mean for that to be a threat. I was simply wondering where your certainty of all other religious people being wrong comes from. Sure, I, too, didn't look up thousands of religions hard enough, but I sticked to an answer and joined the fight, with some hypothetical chances of getting the right answer.

I actually came to this forum exactly for that. I hoped I could find a decisive rebuttal of the Qur'an, a good case that literary achievements with superior quality could be made, a clear mistake that would leave no doubt to any curious reader's mind that this religion is a fake. But all I got was moral complaints, Muhammad did this, Muhammad didn't do that ...

I don't want to spend my life praying and fasting for some delusional hope either. But the total absence of good rebuttals to my position got me to think that maybe I am not wasting my time.

I've managed to trudge through my turgid existence without becoming a child molesting warlord.  I don't draw a blank as to why rape is bad or imagine that drugging the victim makes it better.   

Seems to be working well enough for me. 

I see. Now you take refuge in your personal experience, if an erroneous moral position worked well for you, specifically, then that makes it less erroneous.

[EgoDeath]

No, it’s because he’s mature enough to ignore the insult-slinging peanut gallery, and stay focused on the actual substantive discussions being had. You guys are just butt-hurt because you can’t get a reaction out of him, lol.

Okay... I really must not be explaining myself correctly here, because you really have the wrong idea about how I view this situation and view Bel as an individual. I'd like to unpack what you're saying line by line because I want to be 100% clear about how I think and feel about this.

No, it’s because he’s mature enough to ignore the insult-slinging peanut gallery...

The issue with that statement Lady is that Bel behaves this way regardless of whether anyone is insulting him or not. At a certain point I think people insult because they're sick of him being so slippery. And yeah, it's an unnecessary, and immature reaction to a frustrating set of behaviors. Fair enough.

It sort of just gets to the point where I, and others, apparently, wonder why he's even having these conversations, because whenever someone actually starts to take him to task on specific points, he suddenly finds a convenient reason to ignore the person criticizing his arguments or insists that he's given a sufficient answer when he clearly hasn't. Or, he'll tell you that you're being simplistic and are not worth arguing with. Doesn't matter in the end - the point is he always finds a reason to avoid getting down to brass tacks.

And people are annoyed with it. I'll say that the insults should be curtailed, at least on my part, because there's no good reason for it and it certainly doesn't help tease out a productive conversation.

But this would be the equivalent of me joining a Christian forum, making a sort of vague, hardly hashed-out argument like, "God isn't real because evolution," and then instead of explaining myself specifically when people criticize my argument, beginning to just quote different atheist thinkers, philosophers and scientists, insisting that my opponents don't really understand what atheism is (while failing to properly explain what it is, i.e. you have the wrong answer but I'm not going to give you the right one), and then exiting the conversation when someone starts to take me to task on the ambiguous answers, insisting to them that I've already answered every question they have.

It's nonsense, Lady, and I'm hard-pressed to believe that you don't see through it as well. I know you're smarter than that. I'm not saying Bel isn't an intelligent individual - I think he is. But I'm convinced that Bel doesn't even really understand that vague arguments he uses a lot of the time. At least not as much as he pretends to. If there's no purposeful manipulation going on, then he truly has a lot more to learn about the very arguments that he's trying to make.

...and stay focused on the actual substantive discussions being had.

Now that couldn't be further from the truth. I just don't know what to say here. He does anything except stay on point. Once again, his strategy seems to be to divert the conversation to what Christian thinkers, ones that he prefers, mind you, would have to say, and then insisting that quoting these thinkers if a sufficient way of making his argument, and then refusing to elaborate further. Not sure what else to say there.

You guys are just butt-hurt because you can’t get a reaction out of him, lol.

Okay, now that's just silly, Lady. It really isn't that serious. The only time I tried to provoke a reaction from Bel is when I was doing so to prove a point, which worked wonderfully. In the thread he made about a reading list regarding Christianity, he exposed a clear contradiction in how he thinks about Christianity, which is what I set out to prove. It was a dirty trick, I admit, but it worked.

Outside of that, I don't have some kind of personal beef with Bel. I'm not trying to provoke any reaction out of him except honesty about what he actually thinks. And he's quite good at avoiding that.

This isn't what you're making it to be Lady, and maybe that's because I previously haven't explained myself properly. But when multiple people are seeing the same quality in Bel, it makes me wonder how you can deny it so blatantly. I'm not sure if you just go out of your way to stick up for him because you feel bad about it or what... Regardless, it's a little silly. We're just calling out what we see to be blatantly obvious... And to be honest, these two aren't the only ones who have expressed these same exact feelings about Bel. Multiple people have explained to me in personal messages that they've noticed this about him too. So is everyone wrong about the guy? Or are we maybe all seeing a common thread in his behavior?

C'mon, really. As I've said, I haven't always went about it the most mature way... Fair enough. But that doesn't make the criticisms themselves any less true.

[LadyForCamus]

@EgoDeath
We just have different experiences, I guess.

[EgoDeath]

@EgoDeath
We just have different experiences, I guess.

And that's fine, Lady. I respect you and your opinions. You're a smart person - much smarter than I.

But I'm just not sure how you can deny what's in front of you. This makes me think that maybe you just feel bad for the guy and therefore feel the need to go out of your way to stick up for him.

Even if I disregard the nearly half a dozen people I've talked to in private about this, there are three people here who are seeing the same issue with the same poster and somehow you're not seeing it? Strange. To each their own though.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think I didn't frame that correctly. There are true moral statements out there, but we disagee on which ones. And saying that moral realism = there are moral facts isn't, I think, correct. The word fact means, to me, a true logical statement, that could or couldn't be confirmed by external reality.

Whereas I already knew you didn't frame that correctly. lol.  OFC we disagree on what the relevant set of facts is.  Humans disagree over facts all the time.  However.....since we've agreed that it is fact which we base our morality on - I comfortably and without any concern whatsoever discard all non facts (like whether or not your silly ass god exists, or has anything to say, or where my soul might be) from my moral consideration - and you can no longer coherently field any error theorist objection whatsoever. You're done. 

I just don't need those facts, and if those facts existed.....which they don't... they would be subjective rather than objective facts - by definition.

So, for example, if it is a fact that an open relationship is harmful, then it would be bad to be in an open relation. If and when an open relationship is not harmful...then it cannot be coherently said to be wrong. Following? Disagree? Didn't you think it was compelling when you asserted that the little girl Big Mo raped didn't have a problem with it, and no one else complained? Who was harmed..amiright?

Hell..maybe he drugged her first.

I'm not going to humor you for a second about not meaning to make a threat. Yes you did, and you believe it to be true. Have the courage of your own convictions..at least, cretin.