If everything has a purpose then evil doesn't exist

[R-Farmer]

Objectivist values aren't true or false based on the level of acceptance in a society. 

Actually they are. as again might = right through out all of human history. Whom ever has the power and authority has the right and ability to dictate morality.

If you still think this is a meaningful criticism of metaethical objectivism you have failed to absorb anything you've only recently been exposed to, as you tell the tale.

You are correct I have failed to absorbed anything that I have most recently been exposed to.. I fail to see how this is a 'bad' thing. especially when the conclusion of the new content is flawed. As again if you can not produce a single example of metaethical Objectivity, then how can you pretend it exists anywhere outside of a philosophical argument?

Even worse, you're missing the inference there completely, imo.  It's often proposed that doing some little harm will prevent or make less likely a greater harm.  People who think that harm can be corrective are not rejecting harm based moral objectivism - they're thoroughly assuming it.  It's because harm thing x does indeed harm said subject y that y will remember it and find it corrective, with respect to greater harm possibility z.  

So.. Harming others = A No harm to others moral stance?

If so then why has this society all but banned spanking, at school and even by parents? why has this same society outlawed caning as a cruel and unusual punishment?

The idea of christian sin plays with harm based objectivism.  Every time some witchdoctor says that homosex causes hurricanes..or that evil acts damage your soul.  The idea of sin as miasma or disease is so explicit on harm that it detaches the harm from any particular agent and makes it it's very own force floating through the air doing shit to people.  The idea that god puts folks through trials and tribulations and that the world exists as it is (warts and all) because this is a giant soul forge, also very explicitly arising from harm based objectivism.

The short version of a long story, is that in arguing against moral objectivism with me you remove the alleged moral warrant of your own god, you contradict your very own apologetics, and you present a self defeating worldview of purely transactional nihilism.  I somehow doubt that was your intention...but here we are.

Removing all moral implications from god is my primary objective. As again morality is Man's standard. Not God's. Morality is a bastardized version of the Standard of God's Righteousness (what God has in place of morality)

Objective morality is our attempt to have Righteous absolutes like God has without bending the knee to God. This simply does not work with any form of morality as the standard of morality that we adopt is only applicable to the society's ability to enforce their morality. As God is all powerful meaning every person alive will have to one day stand infront of Him then Give an account of our lives. Because He has final say along with the power and authority to sentence and carry out His judgement.. We can conclude God's righteousness and man's object morality are not the same thing.

Yes, you should be much more clear.  Are all colors red, even green?  Tell me how to make sense of a statement like this so that I can make sense of your statement that all morality is relative, even objective morality.

Can you give an example of relative morality? great. put a pin in that.. Now, can you give an example of a universally accepted point of morality that hold an intrinsic moral value despite what society faces it?
No?! you say??

Then maybe this is not a color discussion at all. Maybe the type of light we are talking about isn't even on the/your current visual spectrum..

[brewer]

Is it just me or do all the religious nut jobs come out during warm weather.

Fucking global warming!

[arewethereyet]

Is it just me or do all the religious nut jobs come out during warm weather.

Fucking global warming!

Yeah, I have been trying to figure that out myself.  Usually it's Lent and Advent when they arrive.

[R-Farmer]

-and I think this has gone so long I'm just going to have to try to give you an assist.  There's a disturbingly easy response to moral objections to theism.  When some supposedly good god is said to have done or commanded horrid shit...that's not god saying that - that's his ghostwriters.  Maybe that's why god always looks like the ideal tribal chieftan of whatever fucking hellhole he comes from?

God's up there watching this....The Real One™.....and is not amused.  Now, I get that you have some latent compulsions to inerrantism bouncing around in your head, but consider this.  Just as above, if you insist for reasons of inerrantism that god DID TOO! order the code red....then you are not refuting the moral objection - you're confirming it's fundamental validity.

which is Why I am separating God from man's objective moral standard.

Making God's will the source of his righteousness and not some arbitrary/objective standard making God answerable to man.

That way God can in fact the Order 'Santiago's Code Red' and retain 100% perfect righteousness. Even if it violates man's objective standards.

like I said, 'not even on the visible spectrum.'

[R-Farmer]

lol weren't you the person who mock the idea that all baby mammals had to be nursed by Mrs. Noah?

You are the dumb ass that said all the animals on the ark were babies.  Then went on to say that dairy animals would have to be there to provide nourishment.  I pointed out that baby dairy animals don't give milk.  I deduced that the one mature female on the boat would have to be Mrs. Noah.

Of course, you tried to back pedal on the only baby animals part.

But however you shovel it, it's still bullshit.

Actually I did not say that at all. I said from the beginning that if Noah took baby mammals he wouldn't have to worry about space, them eating each other, or his family or having 100 different types of food. just a bunch of dairy animals to feed them.

[R-Farmer]

lol, If you aren't going to align your self with Religion nor with established science.. then what is the point of having a discussion with you? again this is nothing more than gate keeping. Where whatever I say is just summarily dismissed because you don't want to believe or don't want/can't argue a point. So it is dismissed on your say so.

Which is fine, if you want to live your life that way. but at the same time I do not want to be apart of a discussion founded on your personal world view that is grounded in nothing more than "because I said so."

(my bold)

And yet, that's all you offer.

Actully I don't even offer that. My offer begins and ends with sharing with you what god offers. As I can not produce anything He has promised on my own.

[Silver]

again this is not a discussion on the legitimacy of a given subject but the methodology used to research and study a NON SCIENTIFIC/Theological subject. Everything isn't or doesn't fall under the category of 'science' if you insist that it does I'm afraid there is nothing more I can discuss with you here.

Yeah, but discussing the bible is like discussing harry potter.

The only difference is in character and plot.

[R-Farmer]

It is interesting to wonder whether a vision quest can succeed by those criteria you offered - of novelty and externality.  I don't think it's clear that it would.  If a vision quest is to be anything different from normal empirical observation - it seems like we'd be discussing some sort of inward-searching.  Whether we can acquire something we don't already possess by looking inward is an open question.  OTOH, I'm sure we can come up with novel arrangements of items already possessed.  

A hard requirement for externality probably does endanger most of what we refer to as a vision quest to being unsuccessful.

If you talk to a true savant, many of them sometimes speak (If they can Speak) of an experience where they are like a passenger in a car going for a ride, or a movie theater goer where their primary conscious is set aside and this secondary 'consciousness' completely independent of their waking mind takes over and allows them to paint photo realistic scenes with no formal training, or perform write music on a Mozart level. Not saying this is how vision quests work. I'm just demonstrating a plausible avenue that is in fact a well known and scientifically documented avenue which similar phenoma occur (where information outside of a person's scope age or ability is imparted to them on a scale that could not normally originate from the individual.)

[HappySkeptic]

Actually I did not say that at all. I said from the beginning that if Noah took baby mammals he wouldn't have to worry about space, them eating each other, or his family or having 100 different types of food. just a bunch of dairy animals to feed them.

Since we are talking make-believe, why not just have God put them into a magic form of cryo-sleep, so that they don't need to eat?

As for their being too many species to fit in the Arc, why not imagine that God used a shrink ray when they boarded, and reversed it when they disembarked?

Its a myth.  It isn't history.

[arewethereyet]

Actually I did not say that at all. I said from the beginning that if Noah took baby mammals he wouldn't have to worry about space, them eating each other, or his family or having 100 different types of food. just a bunch of dairy animals to feed them.

Since we are talking make-believe, why not just have God put them into a magic form of cryo-sleep, so that they don't need to eat?

As for their being too many species to fit in the Arc, why not imagine that God used a shrink ray when they boarded, and reversed it when they disembarked?

Its a myth.  It isn't history.

I asked earlier about the use of magic dust.  That went unanswered.  Good luck to ya.