[split] Are Questions About God Important?

[FrustratedFool]

I think you've read something that isn't there. 

I'm apparently not the only one having trouble understanding what you write.

I'm not sure what something being objectively important would even mean.  What do you think it means?

I think it means a divide-by-zero error.

Yes, many don't understand my posts.

[The Grand Nudger]

Rational discourse about objectivity is inherently advantageous -to- objectivity. That's my absolute favorite thing about it, even if..especially if... objectivism is untrue. If so, then none of our purportedly sound and allegedly valid objections to objectivism can be true. Add to that the fact (hah! no such thing) that people in general do not actually want to think or say that their own truth statements are basically a discussion about their favorite flavors of ice cream and that none of their pretenses to facts are operative - or to be in the mockable position of admitting that they are an objectivist about every other thing but objectivism.......and it's basically a can't lose scenario.

Good lord, if only there were something, anything, that could explain how we ended up in such a clearly confused circumstance........

[FrustratedFool]

I'm sorry, I don't follow.
Oh well.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure, any statement - obviously the thread is mostly about statements of value.  What is important, how it's important, who it's important to, what it's important for.

I literally just told you what I mean by objective, after you asked me what I meant by objective...after I'd already told you what I meant by objective.  Look, you don't have to agree ...and I do keep saying "rightly or wrongly"..... but it's ridiculous to pretend the question hasn't been answered, and answered at length, as to what I mean.  I'm a talkative bitch.

I'm slow.
Please define what you mean by objective.

I know that when I say something is important I'm trying to communicate something about the object in question, about the object of the statement itself. Not whether or not a god also exists or has it's own opinion on the object.

Simply put, the purported value or importance of water is not a Fool fact, or a Nudger fact, or an Ahri fact. It's a water fact.

Now, because I'm an objectivist, when I want to argue with a person over whether or not something is or could be important and how.... I don't launch into a pointless other argument about whether or not some god also exists. I talk about the thing I'm making claims about itself.

The notion that moral statements purport to report facts and insomuch as they accurately report those facts they should be treated like any other statement that purports to report a fact and accurately reports it.

Say someone says they think cats are important. That's them telling you they think that cats exist, too. Granted, they may be wrong. Cativism may be false, but they're a cativist all the same. No?

That's why people so often attempt to back up their opinions with facts.

Do you not follow because you or I have some fact of the matter wrong? Objective.

It's an issue of smarts (and you may have the relationship inverted).  Objective. 

If you knew more, or if I knew more, maybe we would be able to follow or agree.

Objectivism is the notion that statements purport to report facts and either succeed or fail to report those facts.

All but one or two of these are responses to you..that you..yourself..have quoted and responded to.

[FrustratedFool]

But I don't see a definition of objective in any of them?

[The Grand Nudger]

Like I just said, mockable positions. The literal textbook definition of objectivism and objective is included twice. You think I walk around saying shit like "purports to report" all the time?

[FrustratedFool]

When you use the term 'objective' you're using it to mean 'mockable positions'?
I'm lost. I really don't understand you at all, and even when I ask simple, direct questions like how you define objective you answe in ways I can't follow.

[The Grand Nudger]

Do you purport to report that the alleged fact of your ignorance is true?

Congratulations! You're an objectivist making an objective claim.

[Ahriman]

I guess drinking water is only important to me, then. I suppose I can't prove that it's important to anyone else. Besides, of course, all the people I've seen drinking water. But I guess I can't know if everyone drinks water. So.....it must not be objectively important.

[Silver]

Trace amounts of water can be found in all fluids, and I have known people who subjectively avoid plain water for their preferred beverage. Although, objectively, water is important for physical survival.