This is the fifth and final segment relating discussions I had with Atheist due to the video “Is Morality Objective? Randal Rauser & CC Vs Brenton & 5-By-5”—when all segments are posted, you will be able to find them here.
Picking up where we left off:
Friend, by definition someone who self-identifies as an accidentally and temporarily existing talking ape offering personal preferences de jour termed “my subjective morality” does not amount to “I condemn” but rather, is on the level of a “My dear diary, today I feel..” entry. You expressing your tentative feelings is not the same as an ethical condemnation, it is on a part with an ape demanding that “Ooooh, oooh, aaah, aaah” is accurate but “Aaah, aaah, oooh, ooh” is wrong.
BTW: you also imply that honesty is a virtue without a premise—another one of those emotive assertions.
“ought to do…SHOULD do” is in the category of imperatives. But you end up agreeing with me when you say “It’s an opinion” which is all you have, and which is utterly impotent. What you do not have are imperatives since your worldview does not and cannot provide you any—again, you just have to assert an opinion de jour that people ought do/should do what you say because you say it.
But of course you have to provide things about your worldview to speak about my worldview: you are already doing it, everything you say is based on it. You seem to be realizing that your worldview is such an utter failure that you cannot even appeal to it for anything. Thus, I am not sidestepping since there is nothing yet to sidestep: we are still setting the table but you claim I am refusing to eat as a fundamental issue avoidance tactic—sidestepping.
By technical definition, morality is subjective, tentative, situational, intrinsic, etc. when understood to refer to the mores. Ethics is objective, absolute, universal, extrinsic, etc. when understood to refer to the ethos.
Thus, when you say “show me how morality is objective. I am still waiting” you will keep waiting since I never claimed any such thing.
Speaking of sidestepping, you ask “are you really saying the bible does not say god can do anything, because if you are then you really don’t know the bible” but that was a reply to “You say ‘Your own bible says that god can do anything’ but that is an assertion which is unquoted, uncited, un-elucidated and based on hidden assumptions” so provide the evidence.
You still did not prove how morality is objective, just as I thought and now you are playing the little game oh you never said that. LOL You are just a troll. We are done.
Friend, it seems that the confusion came about when I wrote “by definition ‘morality’ is a description of whatever it is that people are doing since it refers to the ‘mores.’ Ethics (or what some term absolute/universal/objective morality) is absolute, extrinsic, objective, etc.”
Thus, you must be asking about ethics as the ethos which some call absolute/universal/objective morality as opposed to morality as the mores.
If and only if this is the case then since you adhere to subjective morality/mores then you have disqualified yourself from even condemning anything—even trolls.
Ethics as the ethos which some call absolute/universal/objective morality is evident in that, for example, all people for all time in all places consider heroism to be praiseworthy and villainy to be condemnable.
We have already been over this “If and only if this is the case then since you adhere to subjective morality/mores then you have disqualified yourself from even condemning anything—even trolls.” And you are wrong. No point in even bothering with this anymore.
Sadly, I have experienced this many times: the Atheist begins to realize they have no premise upon which to base their missionary endeavors so they throw out a dismissive “you are wrong” and run away rather than recognizing that their worldview fails before it even begins.
“If and only if this is the case then since you adhere to subjective morality/mores then you have disqualified yourself from even condemning anything—even trolls” since all you can say in reply is that you have personally decided to subjectively take on a personal preference to say that you do not like something and yet, even this is based on hidden assumptions—those assumptions you see rather desperate to leave obscured under the rug.
People dont run away from you. You just say BS stuff like “you have disqualified yourself from even condemning anything” which isn’t true and you keep repeating it and people just give up. You showed how clueless you were in this debate, like you always are. Not to mention you have no good evidence for your worldview, so its useless.
Unsure why you opt to play mind reader. Please note that to “condemn” does not just mean what you mean by it which is that you personally decided to subjectively express feeling to the effect that you do not like something—all based on hidden assumptions, of course.
Thus, if it is wrong that “you have disqualified yourself from even condemning anything” simply elucidate why.
I also discern your Atheist missionary endeavor since you claim that if people do not agree with your then “it[’]s useless.”
AGAIN we use logic and reason for our subjective morality unlike you where you just blindly follow a 2,000 year old book that is full of immoral things that you defend as moral written by goat herders.
Friend, I can tell that you are opting for emotive reactions rather than reasoned discourse so let us go about it thusly:
Let us say that your most recent comment is accurate: my question is “So what?” In an accidental and temporary life and universe wherein there is no imperative to be logical or “moral” then there is no imperative for me to somehow manage to change the accidental bio-chemical neural reactions within my haphazardly evolved brain which are accidentally predetermined by the accidental laws of thermodynamics to match yours radon bio-chemical byproducts which you call thoughts.
You say “we use logic” but you committed logical fallacies such as the generic logical fallacy by referring to “a 2,000 year old book…written by goat herders.”
What you are saying is tantamount to “We use hammers to pound in nails” and I am asking how did the hammer come to be, why should we use it when we can use many other things, why do you demand that use it, etc., etc., etc. and your only reply is that it just is and because you say so.
Since you believe that “morality” is subjective then you committed another logical fallacy in asserting (without evidence, of course) that the Bible is “full of immoral things” since you have disqualified yourself from condemning anything in the Bible—and anything in general, at all, ever.
You see rather desperate to avoid these fundamental issues and want to just keep copying and pasting from your Atheist missionary 101 dogmatheism playbook memo.
I have already answered your questions, we are just going in circles.
So then, is your main point something to the likes of that the universe is an accident, the galaxy is an accident, the solar system is an accident, Earth is an accident, life is an accident, you are an accident, your brain is an accident, your thoughts are an accident ergo, you are right and anyone who dares to disagree is wrong?
Well, that ended it as no more replies were forthcoming.
See my books on Atheism.
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.