CAPSLOCKED:


I PITY THAT MAN.

WHEN CHRISTIANS ARE UNCOMFORTABLE MARRYING FROM DIFFERENT CHRISTIAN DENOMINATIONS, THIS COMPLETE INFIDEL WANTS TO ENTER ONE CHANCE..
BECAUSE AT LAST, BECAUSE OF LOVE AND STEADY WHINING AND CRYING FROM THE WOMAN, HE'LL BE FORCED TO ATTEND CHURCH AND PRETEND THAT JESUS IS LORD.

Lmaooo

rekinomtla:


Everything I said was facts. Muhammad is a false prophet, there are lots of false gods, doctrines and moral beliefs. Trust me, beating up your wife is actually, really, morally wrong. It's not just a matter of opinion.

Muslims will tell you you're wrong that Christianity is a false religion. Stating out their subjective reasons.

It seems you're not seeing how you're shooting yourself in the foot.

amaniro:



Yes. THEIR CHOICE OF FAITH AIN'T MY BUSINESS. OFFICE IS AN OFFICIAL AND A FORMAL PLACE.

and u dont think there's gonna be argumnt in office but u think there's gonna be argumnt in marriage.

tintingz:
Muslims will tell you you're wrong that Christianity is a false religion. Stating out their subjective reasons.

As I said before, the disagreement is irrelevant. His belief that it is morally right to beat his wife is still either true or false. Maybe he's right, maybe I'm wrong. With the moral subjectivist no one's right or wrong, it's just a difference in opinion.

It seems you're not seeing how you're shooting yourself in the foot.

How in the world am I shooting myself in the foot? so far, the only thing you told me is that there are disagreements between people. That is completely consistent with my view.

rekinomtla:


As I said before, the disagreement is irrelevant. His belief that it is morally right to beat his wife is still either true or false. Maybe he's right, maybe I'm wrong. With the moral subjectivist no one's right or wrong, it's just a difference in opinion.

How in the world am I shooting myself in the foot? so far, the only thing you told me is that there are disagreements between people. That is completely consistent with my view.

My goodness, this guy keep shooting himself in the foot.

- What's subjective morality and what's objective morality?

- Why do you think atheists believe in subjective morality and theists believe in objective morality?

- Whose morality should we all follow and why?

It seems I'm just wasting my time arguing with you.

OpenYourEyes1:
I do not think it is safe to trust an Atheist.
I was an Atheist... I know how their minds work.

You were not a real atheist so keep quiet

1Sharon:

You were not a real atheist so keep quiet

Which one is real and fake atheist?

GreatResearcher:
and u dont think there's gonna be argumnt in office but u think there's gonna be argumnt in marriage.

How will he argue with somebody that employed him


Marriage is different

amaniro:



How will he argue with somebody that employed him


Marriage is different

how will she argue with someone that married her with his hard earned cash?

CosmicPhoenix:

i'm in a similar situation,the girl doesnt know i am an atheist and biggest issue is that she's a muslim

Awwwww. Just come clean to her and see how it goes.

tintingz:
My goodness, this guy keep shooting himself in the foot.

- What's subjective morality and what's objective morality?

Moral subjectivism is the meta-ethical view that moral truths is a matter of opinion. What is true for you is different for me because we have different opinions. Moral objectivism is the view that moral truths is independent of opinions.

- Why do you think atheists believe in subjective morality and theists believe in objective morality?

Most atheists believe it's subjective because they don't believe in God or because they don't think objective morality is possible on metaphyical naturalism. They believe it's subjective but don't live their lives as if it were. Similar to what many of them do with the case of freewill, they believe it doesn't exist but live their lives as if it does. Most atheists just assume subjectivism is the default position, they like making such assumptions about their views.

Most theists believe its is objective because they believe in God and see no reason to doubt their intuition.

- Whose morality should we all follow and why?

Follow whatever you think is true. Human knowledge is fallible, so we always going to have some false and some true moral beliefs, and therefore there will always be moral disagreements.

It seems I'm just wasting my time arguing with you.

You haven't made any arguments. All you done is asserted that people have disputes over these issues.

rekinomtla:


Moral subjectivism is the meta-ethical view that moral truths is a matter of opinion. What is true for you is different for me because we have different opinions. Moral objectivism is the view that moral truths is independent of opinions.

Good, can you state a moral that's Independent from people's opinion?

Most atheists believe it's subjective because they don't believe in God or because they don't think objective morality is possible on metaphyical naturalism.

Do all religions believe in a God and one divine scripture?

They believe it's subjective but don't live their lives as if it were. Similar to what many of them do with the case of freewill, they believe it doesn't exist but live their lives as if it does. Most atheists just assume subjectivism is the default position, they like making such assumptions about their views.

Some atheist believe in determinism some in freewill, but saying there's a destiny which has been ordained and again saying we have freewill is nonsensical and a paradox.

Most theists believe its is objective because they believe in God and see no reason to doubt their intuition.

How does objective morality exist in theists when they have different Gods and their scriptures?. I just gave example of morality of a Muslim that differ from a Christian, are they not following the morality of their respective Gods?

Allah of Muslims said polygamy is a moral practice, Yahweh of Christians said polygamy is immoral, where is objective here?

Follow whatever you think is true. Human knowledge is fallible, so we always going to have some false and some true moral beliefs, and therefore there will always be moral disagreements.

Is this not supporting subjective morality?

You haven't made any arguments. All you done is asserted that people have disputes over these issues.

So far I've demonstrated how morality is subjective in reality, even in theists there's no objective morality. Each religion has it own divine morality.

How we can establish an objective morality will be a difficult task, at least some are achieved.

OpenYourEyes1:
I do not think it is safe to trust an Atheist.
I was an Atheist... I know how their minds work.

How does the mind of an atheist work?

OpenYourEyes1:


Docrine of demons.

Do me a favour. Open your eyes please!

Aleister Crowley was not an atheist! He was an English occultist, ceremonial magician, poet, painter, novelist, and mountaineer. He founded the religion of Thelema, identifying himself as the prophet entrusted with guiding humanity into the Æon of Horus in the early 20th century.

tintingz:
Good, can you state a moral that's Independent from people's opinion?

It's objectively wrong to torture infants for fun.

Do all religions believe in a God and one divine scripture?

No.

Some atheist believe in determinism some in freewill, but saying there's a destiny which has been ordained and again saying we have freewill is nonsensical and a paradox.

Why do atheists say morality is subjective?

How does objective morality exist in theists when they have different Gods and their scriptures?. I just gave example of morality of a Muslim that differ from a Christian, are they not following the morality of their respective Gods?

The disagreements says nothing about whether morality is objective or subjective. People disagree about the shape of the earth, the nature of reality and the existence of God. That doesn't mean that our beliefs about those issues of just a matter of subjective opinions.

Allah of Muslims said polygamy is a moral practice, Yahweh of Christians said polygamy is immoral, where is objective here?

Lots of people also the earth is flat, that doesn't make the shape of the earth is just a matter of subjective opinion. The proposition that the shape of earth is that of a sphere is still objectively true. Again disputes say nothing at all about whether our beliefs are subjective or objective.

Is this not supporting subjective morality?

No. A subjectivist says our moral beliefs are just differences in preferences. Some people like beating their wifes, others don't. But no one's really wrong, there's just a difference in opinion. Basically viewing morals like we view our preferences for different flavors of ice cream.

So far I've demonstrated how morality is subjective in reality, even in theists there's no objective morality. Each religion has it own divine morality.

You haven't given any argument thus far. You just mentioned people have different moral beliefs therefore morality is subjective. Doesn't follow.

How we can establish an objective morality will be a difficult task, at least some are achieved.

We already live our lives as if it were objective.

rekinomtla:


It's objectively wrong to torture infants for fun.

In Africa the society still see beating children to be moral, in Europe it's immoral, you can even be jail for just tapping your child.

No.

How then morality is objective in theists when they believe in different Gods?

Why do atheists say morality is subjective?

I don't know about others, but for me morality is both objective and subjective, it's more subjective in realistic view.

The disagreements says nothing about whether morality is objective or subjective. People disagree about the shape of the earth, the nature of reality and the existence of God. That doesn't mean that our beliefs about those issues of just a matter of subjective opinions.

For the fact that people have their own opinions, beliefs and held very strongly shows subjectivity.

Lots of people also the earth is flat, that doesn't make the shape of the earth is just a matter of subjective opinion. The proposition that the shape of earth is that of a sphere is still objectively true. Again disputes say nothing at all about whether our beliefs are subjective or objective.

The only way to have an objective fact about something is doing investigations, experiments with evidence.

If evidence shows the earth is spherical any opposition to it is delusional.

No. A subjectivist says our moral beliefs are just differences in preferences. Some people like beating their wifes, others don't. But no one's really wrong, there's just a difference in opinion. Basically viewing morals like we view our preferences for different flavors of ice cream.

Exactly, a Muslim believe he's not wrong as long as his morality is derived from his divine book. The way to show him he's wrong is putting him in that shoe.

If he believe killing apostate is morally good then we can take him to a Jewish country where he will also be killed for apostasy, let him experience the morality he believes in.

You haven't given any argument thus far. You just mentioned people have different moral beliefs therefore morality is subjective. Doesn't follow.

How?

We already live our lives as if it were objective.

How?

tintingz:
In Africa the society still see beating children to be moral, in Europe it's immoral, you can even be jail for just tapping your child.

How’s this relevant to the specific example I gave?

How then morality is objective in theists when they believe in different Gods?

Because that says nothing about the nature of morality. If assumed for arguments sake that morality is objective then we should expect humans to have different moral beliefs because human knowledge is fallible.

I don't know about others, but for me morality is both objective and subjective, it's more subjective in realistic view.

What do you mean it is both objective and subjective? And why do you believe this to be the case?

For the fact that people have their own opinions, beliefs and held very strongly shows subjectivity.

If that shows subjectivity then all these beliefs below are also just subjective opinions:

A) The earth is a sphere
B) The universe is eternal
C) God does not exist
D) God does exist
E) There’s no evidence for God
F) There is evidence for God

Do you think all these are just subjective?

The only way to have an objective fact about something is doing investigations, experiments with evidence.

Then this statement itself is just your subjective opinion because firstly there’s people who disagree with it, and based on what you said before, it therefore follows that your statement is subjective.

And secondly, the statement is self refuting. If an objective fact can “only be obtained through investigations, experiments with evidence “ then the statement itself is not objective. It’s just your subjective opinion.

If evidence shows the earth is spherical any opposition to it is delusional.

Therefore what you said below is false:

For the fact that people have their own opinions, beliefs and held very strongly shows subjectivity.

Because people have different beliefs about shape of the earth. According to what you said above, that shows their beliefs are subjective. Yet you don’t think that here, you think your belief about the shape of the earth is objectively true in spite of the fact that lots of people don’t agree with you or your evidence. This demonstrates that mere disputes tells us nothing about whether our beliefs are subjective or objective. And therefore cannot be used as an argument against the objectivity of anything.

Exactly, a Muslim believe he's not wrong as long as his morality is derived from his divine book. The way to show him he's wrong is putting him in that shoe.

Putting him in that “shoe” would show that whatever opinion he has with regard to wife beating is correct. So if he believes it’s morally right to beat her, he may do so. And that would actually be the morally right thing to do according to moral subjectivism.

If he believe killing apostate is morally good then we can take him to a Jewish country where he will also be killed for apostasy, let him experience the morality he believes in.

Why would a Jewish country kill him a muslim for apostasy?

How?

Addressed it earlier in this post.

How?

We condemn racists, pedophiles, rapists and murderers as morally evil people regardless of their opinions of their actions. We consider some societies to be morally inferior to others and we think there’s such a thing as moral process.

rekinomtla:


How’s this relevant to the specific example I gave?

Child abuse views.

Because that says nothing about the nature of morality. If assumed for arguments sake that morality is objective then we should expect humans to have different moral beliefs because human knowledge is fallible.

No, if morality is absolute objective then humans will have one moral view and standard maybe from God but unfortunately it's the opposite.

The reason for humans not being perfect shows how subjective morality is.

Compare the morality of the past and today and see the changes.

What do you mean it is both objective and subjective? And why do you believe this to be the case?

Because some morality are objective e.g abolishment of slavery.

All countries are now coming together to discuss what should be consider right and wrong. Objective is playing a role.

Although some religion still encourage slavery but it's a crime in all state laws.

But subjective morality still take the large part even in theists.

If that shows subjectivity then all these beliefs below are also just subjective opinions:

A) The earth is a sphere
B) The universe is eternal
C) God does not exist
D) God does exist
E) There’s no evidence for God
F) There is evidence for God

Do you think all these are just subjective?

Earth being spherical has evidence, the views about the universe is not a conclusive subject, "there's no evidence for God" is not subjective, no one has been able to to prove their God just like Santa is yet to be proven.

If you have evidence of your God why not provide it?

If the sun is up there and no one is debating it existence, I wonder why it is taking God this long to be proven.

Then this statement itself is just your subjective opinion because firstly there’s people who disagree with it, and based on what you said before, it therefore follows that your statement is subjective.

And secondly, the statement is self refuting. If an objective fact can “only be obtained through investigations, experiments with evidence “ then the statement itself is not objective. It’s just your subjective opinion.

Lol, can you define evidence?

If i show you this is the evidence of the phone I'm using and you said I'm using no phone despite seeing the evidence on my hand, won't I ask if you're ok?

Evidence cannot be denied unless such person is delusional.

Therefore what you said below is false:

Because people have different beliefs about shape of the earth. According to what you said above, that shows their beliefs are subjective. Yet you don’t think that here, you think your belief about the shape of the earth is objectively true in spite of the fact that lots of people don’t agree with you or your evidence. This demonstrates that mere disputes tells us nothing about whether our beliefs are subjective or objective. And therefore cannot be used as an argument against the objectivity of anything.

The earth is spherical, it's a fact anyone who denies it is delusional!

Putting him in that “shoe” would show that whatever opinion he has with regard to wife beating is correct. So if he believes it’s morally right to beat her, he may do so. And that would actually be the morally right thing to do according to moral subjectivism.

If you believe stealing is morally good and I stole your precious phone, how would you feel at that moment?

Why would a Jewish country kill him a muslim for apostasy?

Just giving an example.

At least the Jews once killed people for apostasy.

Addressed it earlier in this post.

So what makes people have different opinions and beliefs?

We condemn racists, pedophiles, rapists and murderers as morally evil people regardless of their opinions of their actions. We consider some societies to be morally inferior to others and we think there’s such a thing as moral process.

Some religion and cultures still see pedophile as morally good, killing apostate is murder but it's morally good to them.

GreatResearcher:
how will she argue with someone that married her with his hard earned cash?

Marriage is more intimate than official work duty. You can argue with your wife and just wave it off but work is an official place.

OpenYourEyes1:



The Atheist destroyed alot of Christian crucifixes.

This is so true bro

some deluded atheists like CAPSLOCKED Tintingz etc wants to deny Hitler

Hitler was a Christian my foot! lies from the pit of atheism

his birthday was celebrated every year by the Catholic church while he was alive; only an atheist would be celebrated like that

He closed down the "Freethinker's club" which was a meeting place for non theists especially atheists to meet and used the hall to advice people on "church matters" instead; he did exactly what an atheist would do

he insisted Christianity be taught in schools, this proves his atheism beyond reasonable doubt

his armies wore a belt buckle that read Gott Mit Uns" which is translated as "God with us", just what an atheist would do

he made sure his soldiers are sprinkled with holy water and listen to a sermon by a Catholic priest before going on duty, another sign of an atheist

He ran a programme called "SS Reich" in which spies are to report heresy against the Catholic church and such heretics are prosecuted; another atheistic sign

and there many more atheistic things about Hitler

Atheists should stop lying, Hitler was definitely an atheist

OpenYourEyes1:
I do not think it is safe to trust an Atheist.
I was an Atheist... I know how their minds work.

would you be so kind to explain what you mean by this?

hopefulLandlord:


This is so true bro

some deluded atheists like CAPSLOCKED Tintingz etc wants to deny Hitler

Hitler was a Christian my foot! lies from the pit of atheism

his birthday was celebrated every year by the Catholic church while he was alive; only an atheist would be celebrated like that

He closed down the "Freethinker's club" which was a meeting place for non theists especially atheists to meet and used the hall to advice people on "church matters" instead; he did exactly what an atheist would do

he insisted Christianity be taught in schools, this proves his atheism beyond reasonable doubt

his armies wore a belt buckle that read Gott Mit Uns" which is translated as "God with us", just what an atheist would do

he made sure his soldiers are sprinkled with holy water and listen to a sermon by a Catholic priest before going on duty, another sign of an atheist

He ran a programme called "SS Reich" in which spies are to report heresy against the Catholic church and such heretics are prosecuted; another atheistic sign

and there many more atheistic things about Hitler

Atheists should stop lying, Hitler was definitely an atheist

LMAO.

hopefulLandlord:


This is so true bro

some deluded atheists like CAPSLOCKED Tintingz etc wants to deny Hitler

Hitler was a Christian my foot! lies from the pit of atheism

his birthday was celebrated every year by the Catholic church while he was alive; only an atheist would be celebrated like that

He closed down the "Freethinker's club" which was a meeting place for non theists especially atheists to meet and used the hall to advice people on "church matters" instead; he did exactly what an atheist would do

he insisted Christianity be taught in schools, this proves his atheism beyond reasonable doubt

his armies wore a belt buckle that read Gott Mit Uns" which is translated as "God with us", just what an atheist would do

he made sure his soldiers are sprinkled with holy water and listen to a sermon by a Catholic priest before going on duty, another sign of an atheist

He ran a programme called "SS Reich" in which spies are to report heresy against the Catholic church and such heretics are prosecuted; another atheistic sign

and there many more atheistic things about Hitler

Atheists should stop lying, Hitler was definitely an atheist

Did you read that Wikipedia page on Hitler? If hitler was a Christian why was he obsessed with evolution and superior race thing.


Brainwashed atheists hitting the like button like typical bigots

tintingz:
Child abuse views.

I never said "child abuse" is objectively wrong because those terms are vague. Some people think indoctrination is child abuse , some think disciplining a child is abuse. Thats why I gave a specific example of an infant being tortured for fun. You addressed your own example of africans beating children, the two of cases are not comparable.

No, if morality is absolute objective then humans will have one moral view and standard maybe from God but unfortunately it's the opposite.

That's wrong, the ethical view you just described is moral absolutism, not moral objectivism. Here an extract from "Moral absolutism" entry on Wikipedia:

"Moral absolutism is an ethical view that all actions are intrinsically right or wrong. Stealing, for instance, might be considered to be always immoral, even if done for the well-being of others (e.g., stealing food to feed a starving family), and even if it does in the end promote such a good....Moral absolutism is not the same as moral universalism. Universalism holds merely that what is right or wrong is independent of custom or opinion (as opposed to moral relativism), but not necessarily that what is right or wrong is independent of context or consequences (as in absolutism).

Moral universalism is compatible with moral absolutism, but also positions such as consequentialism. Louis Pojman gives the following definitions to distinguish the two positions of moral absolutism and universalism:

Moral absolutism: There is at least one principle that ought never to be violated.

Moral objectivism: There is a fact of the matter as to whether any given action is morally permissible or impermissible: a fact of the matter that does not depend solely on social custom or individual acceptance." - Wikipedia

The reason for humans not being perfect shows how subjective morality is.

So basically what you saying is we need to be infallible with regard to moral knowledge, otherwise morality is subjective. Doesn’t follow. If that were the case then all of our other areas are knowledge also hase no objective basis in reality for the very same reason.

Compare the morality of the past and today and see the changes.

Compare science of the past and today and see the changes. Doesn’t follow that it is subjective.

Because some morality are objective e.g abolishment of slavery.

Dude you shooting yourself in the foot. You said earlier that if people disagree over the moral issue then it’s not objective? Slavery still exists today, people still own slaves therefore it follows that the abolishment of slavery is not objectively good.

You’ve literally said child abuse and beating one's wife is not objectively wrong because people disagree over the morality of those actions.

All countries are now coming together to discuss what should be consider right and wrong. Objective is playing a role.

That’s still subjective as its dependent on the beliefs of the people of those countries.

Although some religion still encourage slavery but it's a crime in all state laws.

People still practice slavery regardless of religion, It's part human trafficking. And since people still disagree over the issue of slavery, it's therefore subjective right?

But subjective morality still take the large part even in theists.

Define what you mean by subjective morality?

Earth being spherical has evidence, the views about the universe is not a conclusive subject, "there's no evidence for God" is not subjective, no one has been able to to prove their God just like Santa is yet to be proven.

Therefore what your said below is false:

For the fact that people have their own opinions, beliefs and held very strongly shows subjectivity.

Hence the fact that people have their own beliefs or opinions and hold them very strongly says nothing as whether or not this beliefs have any objective basis.

If you have evidence of your God why not provide it?

Theists have provided what they consider evidence. You disagree with their evidence. Therefore your belief of the evidence and theirs are both subjective. I’m just using the same argument/logic you use to claim morality is subjective.

If the sun is up there and no one is debating it existence, I wonder why it is taking God this long to be proven.

We can conclude that evens your belief that the sun exists is subjective because there are solipsists and idealists who disagree with you.

Lol, can you define evidence?

Anything that can be used support a belief.

If i show you this is the evidence of the phone I'm using and you said I'm using no phone despite seeing the evidence on my hand, won't I ask if you're ok?

A solipsist would disagree with your initial assumption of the existence of other minds and the external world. An idealist would disagree with your assumption that the material world has any objective existence. So it follows that your belief that your phone exists is subjective because there's people who disagree with you.

If I said torturing infants for fun is objectively wrong, and you said no its not, won’t I ask if you’re ok?

Evidence cannot be denied unless such person is delusional.

People disagree with your interpretation of the evidence. And when people disagree over an issue we know what that means.

In fact any evidence you could offer would be based on certain assumptions which has no evidence. And since there’s people who disagree with those assumptions it follows your belief is subjective. I can literally use you line of reasoning against any belief you think is objectively true.

The earth is spherical, it's a fact anyone who denies it is delusional!

Then your claim that conflicting beliefs show subjectivity is incorrect. Hence, your argument against moral objectivism fails.

If you believe stealing is morally good and I stole your precious phone, how would you feel at that moment?

I'll probably be angry but I probably wouldn't think you've done anything morally wrong.

Just giving an example.

I don't see the point of the example. I would expect a muslim nation to execute a muslim apostate.

At least the Jews once killed people for apostasy.

Yes when Israel was a theocratic nation.

So what makes people have different opinions and beliefs?

I've answered you already. Why do you keep asking me the same questions when I've given you direct answers before?

Some religion and cultures still see pedophile as morally good, killing apostate is murder but it's morally good to them.

Yes they think it's not objectively wrong. That's the point. They also live their lives as if morality is objective. They think certain actions are objectively right and wrong. They don't not think it's just their opinion.

When I said "we" I'm referring to me and you. You condemn pedophiles, racist, rapists and murderers as immoral people. You don't think just think that's your subjective opinion like your preference for a flavor of ice cream or do you?

rekinomtla:

I never said "child abuse" is objectively wrong because those terms are vague. Some people think indoctrination is child abuse , some think disciplining a child is abuse. Thats why I gave a specific example of an infant being tortured for fun. You addressed your own example of africans beating children, the two of cases are not comparable.


That's wrong, the ethical view you just described is moral absolutism, not moral objectivism. Here an extract from "Moral absolutism" entry on Wikipedia:

"Moral absolutism is an ethical view that all actions are intrinsically right or wrong. Stealing, for instance, might be considered to be always immoral, even if done for the well-being of others (e.g., stealing food to feed a starving family), and even if it does in the end promote such a good....Moral absolutism is not the same as moral universalism. Universalism holds merely that what is right or wrong is independent of custom or opinion (as opposed to moral relativism), but not necessarily that what is right or wrong is independent of context or consequences (as in absolutism).

Moral universalism is compatible with moral absolutism, but also positions such as consequentialism. Louis Pojman gives the following definitions to distinguish the two positions of moral absolutism and universalism:

Moral absolutism: There is at least one principle that ought never to be violated.

Moral objectivism: There is a fact of the matter as to whether any given action is morally permissible or impermissible: a fact of the matter that does not depend solely on social custom or individual acceptance." - Wikipedia


So basically what you saying is we need to be infallible with regard to moral knowledge, otherwise morality is subjective. Doesn’t follow. If that were the case then all of our other areas are knowledge also hase no objective basis in reality for the very same reason.


Compare science of the past and today and see the changes. Doesn’t follow that it is subjective.


Dude you shooting yourself in the foot. You said earlier that if people disagree over the moral issue then it’s not objective? Slavery still exists today, people still own slaves therefore it follows that the abolishment of slavery is not objectively good.

You’ve literally said child abuse and beating one's wife is not objectively wrong because people disagree over the morality of those actions.


That’s still subjective as its dependent on the beliefs of the people of those countries.


People still practice slavery regardless of religion, It's part human trafficking. And since people still disagree over the issue of slavery, it's therefore subjective right?


Define what you mean by subjective morality?


Therefore what your said below is false:
Hence the fact that people have their own beliefs or opinions and hold them very strongly says nothing as whether or not this beliefs have any objective basis.


Theists have provided what they consider evidence. You disagree with their evidence. Therefore your belief of the evidence and theirs are both subjective. I’m just using the same argument/logic you use to claim morality is subjective.


We can conclude that evens your belief that the sun exists is subjective because there are solipsists and idealists who disagree with you.


Anything that can be used support a belief.


A solipsist would disagree with your initial assumption of the existence of other minds and the external world. An idealist would disagree with your assumption that the material world has any objective existence. So it follows that your belief that your phone exists is subjective because there's people who disagree with you.

If I said torturing infants for fun is objectively wrong, and you said no its not, won’t I ask if you’re ok?


People disagree with your interpretation of the evidence. And when people disagree over an issue we know what that means.

In fact any evidence you could offer would be based on certain assumptions which has no evidence. And since there’s people who disagree with those assumptions it follows your belief is subjective. I can literally use you line of reasoning against any belief you think is objectively true.


Then your claim that conflicting beliefs show subjectivity is incorrect. Hence, your argument against moral objectivism fails.


I'll probably be angry but I probably wouldn't think you've done anything morally wrong.


I don't see the point of the example. I would expect a muslim nation to execute a muslim apostate.

Yes when Israel was a theocratic nation.


I've answered you already. Why do you keep asking me the same questions when I've given you direct answers before?


Yes they think it's not objectively wrong. That's the point. They also live their lives as if morality is objective. They think certain actions are objectively right and wrong. They don't not think it's just their opinion.

When I said "we" I'm referring to me and you. You condemn pedophiles, racist, rapists and murderers as immoral people. You don't think just think that's your subjective opinion like your preference for a flavor of ice cream or do you?

My goodness.

I'm done with you.

tintingz:


My goodness.

I'm done with you.

OpenYourEyes1:


Did you read that Wikipedia page on Hitler? If hitler was a Christian why was he obsessed with evolution and superior race thing.


Brainwashed atheists hitting the like button like typical bigots

LOL. The denial and shame written all over this post
Don't you just hate it when evidence is all up in your face?

JujuSugar:

LOL. The denial and shame written all over this post
Don't you just hate it when evidence is all up in your face?

Ask your friend to defend his comment on hitler with a credible link.
I posted a wikipedia link that shows hitler wasn't religious. He banned kids from praying in schools and also destroyed alot of Christian crucifixes.

Below is a screenshot of hitler religious belief on Wikipedia

OpenYourEyes1:


Did you read that Wikipedia page on Hitler? If hitler was a Christian why was he obsessed with evolution and superior race thing.


Brainwashed atheists hitting the like button like typical bigots

there are Christians that think evolution is true. notable names are Francis Collins, Tim Keller, John Walton, and N.T. Wright, among many others. I'd advice you to educate yourself rather than spill ignorance

there are Christians who believe in white supremacy. even the mythical Yahweh of the holy babble rated the Jews over any other lol or do you think Noah must've traveled from Israel to Africa to warn your leaf wearing ancestors about impending flood? No! Yahweh didn't give a sheet about some black skinned people living in a hot location he was too busy appearing in mount horeb to the Israelis and didn't give a rat's ass behind about appearing in mount Kilimanjaro in present day Tanzania to your race . the only time Yahweh did something in Africa was to save his chosen race from captivity lmao!


BTW. I think they hit the like button because they know I gave verifiable facts and if it bothers you so much I may like your posts to make you feel better sir

hopefulLandlord:


there are Christians that think evolution is true. notable names are Francis Collins, Tim Keller, John Walton, and N.T. Wright, among many others. I'd advice you to educate yourself rather than spill ignorance

Probably wolves in sheep clothing: atheists and pagans..

Our holy scripture does not support the myth called evolution.
GOD created everything complete!

OpenYourEyes1:

Probably wolves in sheep clothing: atheists and pagans..
Our holy scripture does not support the myth called evolution. GOD created everything complete!

Of course they must be atheists

OpenYourEyes1:


Ask your friend to defend his comment on hitler with a credible link.
I posted a wikipedia link that shows hitler wasn't religious. He banned kids from praying in schools and also destroyed alot of Christian crucifixes.

Below is a screenshot of hitler religious belief on Wikipedia

https://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm

knock yourself out!