If everything has a purpose then evil doesn't exist

[arewethereyet]

You need to pick a side.

[R-Farmer]

"Science."

science can make demonstrations to validate the belief,  ie it is true whether you believe or not,   your bullshit?

And the other 75% of Science is interpretation/Best guess of available data or evidence. which does require a great deal of faith to accept as truth. That said many have be so conditioned in how and what to think about scientific subjects the expenditure of faith is undetectable to most people. So while you think whatever science says is truth it is in fact an expenditure of faith equal to or greater than the faith I expend to believe my "B/S"

[h4ym4n]

If all the animals are babies, even the dairy animals aren't yet lactating.

Then all the animals are not babies. Genesis 6 the initial charge from God to Moses was to load up the animals that were sent and bring food for them. IF they are all babies then the food would be milk, which comes from lactating animals.
[/quote]


How many windows did the ark have?

How many poop shovels were on ark?

[The Grand Nudger]

Looks like he's done being wrong about morality, and has decided to move on to be wrong about science, boats, and babies.

[R-Farmer]

I said all morality is relative. God's standard Identified as "righteousness" is not relative. God's righteousness is fixed. Making Morality Man's societal standard or Man's version of righteousness which allows for or incorporates what man has deemed as minor sin.

If all morality is relative - then whatever gods morality is, would be relative. This is tautologically true.  If, otoh, you believe that gods morality is not relative...then you cannot believe that all morality is relative.

One way or another, you've misspoken.

false dichotomy. If God's might did not ultimately determine what is and what is not right, yes I would agree. as God's standard would be relative to everyone outside of his circle of influence. but again this subject ties back into the initial discussion of whoever has the most power makes the rules. Those rules made from absolute power are the standard in which all will be judged. So perhaps philosophically those rules can be seen through a lens of relativity, but ultimately they are the absolute standard in which all are judged by Him.

This fact is what fuels the need to kill god off in their hearts and minds so they can in fact create their own standard of right and wrong.

Any 'objective' moral standard that is not God's righteousness is just another form of moral relativism.
I think you're going to have alot of trouble demonstrating that claim.

Not at all. As again all moral standards have changed over time. Even the child sex issue was not an issue if you go back far enough to when life expectancy was mid 20 to early 30 years old. Back then if one was old enough to procreate they were considered a mature adult. This clearly has changed. This change demonstrate that even object morality is also relative to the time and society we live in. which can be summed up by saying object morality is simply generational relative morality. You believe a point of morality is intrinsically right and or wrong because that act is always right or wrong. I have demonstrated this not to be the case because ALL acts even the murder of babies can be morally justified at one point or another in our history. What gives a point of morality the tinge of objectivity is because it does not change or has not changed within several generations.

Which to the point I was making when I rhetorically asked if this generational morality concerning MAPs changes will you be on board with the change? Or will you remain devoted to the what seems intrinsically wrong? If you remain, then can you truly say you prefer a fluid morality over an absolute unchanging standard. (Yes I know you say you are objective in your morality but as I am pointing out here all morality outside of God is relative/fluid.)

If the good and bad making properties are the traditions of a society, then we are discussing a fundamentally relativistic society.  

then that would include all points of object morality as well as again all current points of object morality have changed over the years.

In contrast..in any objective moral system, the good and bad making properties of x - must be factual properties of x. 

and what I'm saying is historically "X" is a variable, as "X" has not always retained it's current value. as again All 'Xs' values have changed at one point or another.

Not properties of a given subjects society or tradition.  I'll give you three claims, see if you can spot the objective one?

1.  It's bad to punch people in the face because we never have before.
2.  It's bad to punch people in the face because our government says so.
3.  It's bad to punch people in the face because punching people in the face causes harm.

And what I'm saying causing people harm say, 50 years ago in this country was a immoral thing. In fact causing certain people harm was your job as a red blooded American. You were expected to punch a communist, socialist, or any other anti American value person in the face because it caused them harm. The current moral code about doing no harm to anyone for any reason is a relatively new addition.

If the good and bad making properties are daddy declarations - that would fall somewhere between relativism and subjectivism.  Neither of those two is objectivism.

Thank you for agreeing with my initial point which is there is NO Object morality. As it is a generationally based morality that you yourself define as relative or subjectively based morality.

I find that I mostly don't need to be stopped from doing bad shit. 

That's because whatever form of morality you subscribe to allows you to move the goal posts from the standard set by god. That's the purpose of all forms of morality. It's man's self defined, self appointed form of righteousness, that allows him to accept and adopt things as being moral, that under God he would see maybe as a 'minor sin.' For the purpose of self identifying as a 'good' person and not a 'bad' person person under God's rule. Over time the line in the sand that defines the self modeled righteousness of man's morality changes and what once was considered evil, is now acceptable. Which again is the whole point and purpose of having a standard apart from God's.. To move the goal post when a society is desensitized enough to normalize what once was considered sin. I am sure you are old enough to remember a time where homosexuality was the unforgivable sin to most people in society, Now it's the polar opposite. the point being morality changes to accommodate the sins we would have to repent of under God.

The point of all of that is to say that if You fully subscribe to the moral standards of popular culture or you subscribe to the generational standard of 'objective morality' fully and at the same time discount God's standards you are 100% beholden to what society tells you is right and wrong. Which is fine and great if you live here and now, but not so much if you were born in china under Mao or hitler's Germany or Kim's North Korea, or the Roman Empire (sending people to the coliseum to be slaughtered for entertainment purposes,) or in colonial America during salvery. As you are apart of a wicked evil and have no clue. Which in of itself is not so bad as you are a product of your time and culture who is or ultimately will be lost to history. However if you have to answer to an all powerful God who's standard you will be judge by, there maybe an issue.

[R-Farmer]

Two things I personally believe the ark story happened further back than what most people understand. far enough back that the animals on the ark may not be recognized today. Which means Noah did not need to have today's zoological catalog on board. but rather some of the ancestors to what we have today. so instead of opossums and Koalas maybe all Noah needed was whatever their common ancestor was.

Koalas and wombats diverged from their common ancestor roughly 40 MYA. Are you suggesting that humans with boat building skills are older than that?

Boru

or the scientific time line is off a bit.. which ever floats your boat.

[HappySkeptic]

or the scientific time line is off a bit.. which ever floats your boat.

Here's an idea - try taking scientific knowledge at face value, and see where that takes your philosophy.  Assuming that an ancient writing is literally and factually correct, and bending your world-view to it, is unlikely to lead to truth.

[The Grand Nudger]

If all morality is relative - then whatever gods morality is, would be relative. This is tautologically true.  If, otoh, you believe that gods morality is not relative...then you cannot believe that all morality is relative.

One way or another, you've misspoken.

false dichotomy.

You're plain and simply wrong here.  You either believe that all x is y, or you believe that at least one x is z.  I suppose you could believe both, in the sense that people often do hold two mutually exclusive beliefs at the same time?  The third option being that you hold explicitly irrational beliefs, not that a tautology is a false dichotomy.

If God's might did not ultimately determine what is and what is not right, yes I would agree. as God's standard would be relative to everyone outside of his circle of influence. but again this subject ties back into the initial discussion of whoever has the most power makes the rules. Those rules made from absolute power are the standard in which all will be judged. So perhaps philosophically those rules can be seen through a lens of relativity, but ultimately they are the absolute standard in which all are judged by Him.

This fact is what fuels the need to kill god off in their hearts and minds so they can in fact create their own standard of right and wrong.

If god's might...or anyones might...really... is the good or bad making property, then morality is both subjective and arbitrary.  Not relative.

Any 'objective' moral standard that is not God's righteousness is just another form of moral relativism.
I think you're going to have alot of trouble demonstrating that claim.

Not at all. As again all moral standards have changed over time. Even the child sex issue was not an issue if you go back far enough to when life expectancy was mid 20 to early 30 years old. Back then if one was old enough to procreate they were considered a mature adult. This clearly has changed. This change demonstrate that even object morality is also relative to the time and society we live in. which can be summed up by saying object morality is simply generational relative morality.

You know...this one comes up every time I have this discussion.  I think I can understand why a subjectivist or relativist might come to that misperception.  If I asked you the sum of two and two..and you said eight - then corrected yourself...would that mean that the sum of two and two being four were a relative truth?

You believe a point of morality is intrinsically right and or wrong because that act is always right or wrong. I have demonstrated this not to be the case because ALL acts even the murder of babies can be morally justified at one point or another in our history. What gives a point of morality the tinge of objectivity is because it does not change or has not changed within several generations.

Sure, identical propositions have identical implications.  If it's bad to do x - it's bad to do x in 1492 or 1992.  If it's not bad to do x in 1992 then it wasn't bad to do x in 1492.  As a point of interest, you can't rationally justify murder with an objective moral system.  Mostly, because murder refers to a specific type of killing that is explicitly unjustifiable.  That people have nevertheless come up with absurd rationalizations for the slaughter of children is very clear in the abrahamic tradition and cultures that sprang from it, I agree.  

I can only say..as an objectivist, you've all been extremely disappointing in that regard.  As an objectivist, I would tell you that the various flawed moralities of human societies throughout all time and including this one -must- change, if they are to be objective - if or when we become aware of some fact that previous people did not know...or if we discover that some asserted fact from any time was..in fact..false.  That's what it means to hold to an objective morality my dude?  

Which to the point I was making when I rhetorically asked if this generational morality concerning MAPs changes will you be on board with the change? Or will you remain devoted to the what seems intrinsically wrong? If you remain, then can you truly say you prefer a fluid morality over an absolute unchanging standard. (Yes I know you say you are objective in your morality but as I am pointing out here all morality outside of God is relative/fluid.)

There you go again.  You can either believe that all morality is x...or you can believe that at least one morality is not x.  

If the good and bad making properties are the traditions of a society, then we are discussing a fundamentally relativistic society.  

then that would include all points of object morality as well as again all current points of object morality have changed over the years.

In contrast..in any objective moral system, the good and bad making properties of x - must be factual properties of x. 

and what I'm saying is historically "X" is a variable, as "X" has not always retained it's current value. as again All 'Xs' values have changed at one point or another.

I'm truly glad we can agree on at least one basic fact.  Moral conclusions have changed over time.  

Sure, I think it's possible that some moral conclusions change over time because they proceed from relativist foundations in a changing society.  Gods many changes of heart from old magic book to new are representative of that.  I also think it's possible that some moral conclusions change over time because people are making new mistakes.  From an objectivists point of view, the only way to rectify that situation would be to correct those mistakes.  In all three cases, moral conclusions would change over time - but they each represent distinct metaethical claims.  This is why moral conclusions changing doesn't demonstrate that the moral conclusions are relative.  

More fundamentally, relativist moral systems cannot include objective moral values - because relativism explicitly excludes objectivist propositions as valid moral propositions.  In an objectivist system the question is whether or not x possesses the good or bad making properties.  In relativism, what your society says is the good or bad making property.  As an objectivist, I have no problem whatsoever pointing out the ways in which my very christian society has been morally incorrect.

Not properties of a given subjects society or tradition.  I'll give you three claims, see if you can spot the objective one?

1.  It's bad to punch people in the face because we never have before.
2.  It's bad to punch people in the face because our government says so.
3.  It's bad to punch people in the face because punching people in the face causes harm.

And what I'm saying causing people harm say, 50 years ago in this country was a immoral thing. In fact causing certain people harm was your job as a red blooded American. You were expected to punch a communist, socialist, or any other anti American value person in the face because it caused them harm. The current moral code about doing no harm to anyone for any reason is a relatively new addition.

You mean...nations sometimes tell you that doing something immoral is your national duty?  I'm shocked!  It had never occurred to my in my years shooting at people that there might be something..idk...bad...about shooting at people.  At any rate, harm based moralities are positively fucking ancient.  There's nothing new about it - but if you're telling me that you've only recently been exposed to harm based objectivism....and that you reject it... that sounds heavy.  

If the good and bad making properties are daddy declarations - that would fall somewhere between relativism and subjectivism.  Neither of those two is objectivism.

Thank you for agreeing with my initial point which is there is NO Object morality. As it is a generationally based morality that you yourself define as relative or subjectively based morality.

I think you're seeing what you wish were there because your script only prepares you to respond to relativists and subjectivists, lol.  In mere reality, I'm explaining how you consistently confuse objectivism for relativism.  I see people doing it, obviously, their real dads and their sky dad - but that's the sort of morality I reject as an objectivist...so...?

That's because whatever form of morality you subscribe to allows you to move the goal posts from the standard set by god. That's the purpose of all forms of morality. It's man's self defined, self appointed form of righteousness, that allows him to accept and adopt things as being moral, that under God he would see maybe as a 'minor sin.' For the purpose of self identifying as a 'good' person and not a 'bad' person person under God's rule. Over time the line in the sand that defines the self modeled righteousness of man's morality changes and what once was considered evil, is now acceptable. Which again is the whole point and purpose of having a standard apart from God's.. To move the goal post when a society is desensitized enough to normalize what once was considered sin. I am sure you are old enough to remember a time where homosexuality was the unforgivable sin to most people in society, Now it's the polar opposite. the point being morality changes to accommodate the sins we would have to repent of under God.

The point of all of that is to say that if You fully subscribe to the moral standards of popular culture or you subscribe to the generational standard of 'objective morality' fully and at the same time discount God's standards you are 100% beholden to what society tells you is right and wrong. Which is fine and great if you live here and now, but not so much if you were born in china under Mao or hitler's Germany or Kim's North Korea, or the Roman Empire (sending people to the coliseum to be slaughtered for entertainment purposes,) or in colonial America during salvery. As you are apart of a wicked evil and have no clue. Which in of itself is not so bad as you are a product of your time and culture who is or ultimately will be lost to history. However if you have to answer to an all powerful God who's standard you will be judge by, there maybe an issue.

You caught me.  I'm basically the worst.  Shame on me for believing that there are moral facts!  Moahitlerkim McRomanslaver.

I'm positively certain that if I find myself at the mercy of your god I'll have all sorts of issues - but none of them moral. This, imo, is the smallest kind of threat. It identifies the issuer as weak and immoral.

[R-Farmer]

or the scientific time line is off a bit.. which ever floats your boat.

Here's an idea - try taking scientific knowledge at face value, and see where that takes your philosophy.  Assuming that an ancient writing is literally and factually correct, and bending your world-view to it, is unlikely to lead to truth.

will do... doing... doing... done.. All scientific knowledge taken at face value, Now what?

[The Grand Nudger]

Have you consulted a naval architect on the construction of livestock barges?