My 'Truth' or 'YOUR 'truth'?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Construct a scenario of people's lives comparing (a) what would happen if Rhiannon was in charge and (b) if Hope was in charge, and see how that stacks up.

Come now. We know power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And you know I think like this how?

It is implicit in your posts and general style.......IMHO.

[BeRational]

Working on it. You will receive my comprehensive reply in about six years.....and no I won't do a Hillside or a Dawkins's and start with the conclusion.

You have already concluded that morality is objective, and yet you cannot defend this, nor give a method to test a moral option for objectiveness.

[BeRational]

Come now. We know power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Would this apply to a god?

[floo]

Would this apply to a god?

Good one.

[Rhiannon]

It is implicit in your posts and general style.......IMHO.

Mind reading again, Vlad... You really should state your posts are for entertainment purposes only.

[floo]

Mind reading again, Vlad... You really should state your posts are for entertainment purposes only.

[BeRational]

It is implicit in your posts and general style.......IMHO.

I have a different opinion, so why is yours correct, and mine wrong?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You have already concluded that morality is objective, and yet you cannot defend this, nor give a method to test a moral option for objectiveness.

Yes but you wanted me to define love and it is that i'm talking about.
Moral relativism actually says nothing about morality so something that does automatically has an advantage. But I have not stopped there We must search for candidates for the moral standard. Atheistic routes out of the cul de sac of moral relativism will include love, Genetic programming, altruism etc. Theistic routes will consider God and there is no reason why we can't consider all of them.

By we I do not mean you since you represent a dead end in the evolution of moral argument.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Mind reading again, Vlad...

No......... post reading.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I have a different opinion, so why is yours correct, and mine wrong?

We all have the capacity to right or wrong.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Moral relativism actually says nothing about morality...

I suppose if someone keeps repeating the lie often enough they'll come to believe it themselves. What Trollboy actually means of course is that "moral relativism" does not concern itself with his assertions about objective reality. Just think: according to Trollboy all those moral philosophers who didn't think you could just look up the answers in a book were wasting their time then. Ah well.

[BeRational]

We all have the capacity to right or wrong.

And are they both equally valid?

[Gordon]

As a Christian I think all are fallen short.

You don't have to be a Christian to think that nobody is perfect.

As an antichristian you think only Christians have fallen short.

That doesn't sound like Rhiannon - but it does looks like a straw man.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I suppose if someone keeps repeating the lie often enough they'll come to believe it themselves. What Trollboy actually means of course is that "moral relativism" does not concern itself with his assertions about objective reality. Just think: according to Trollboy all those moral philosophers who didn't think you could just look up the answers in a book were wasting their time then. Ah well.

Start with the conclusion why don't you?
I think you are assigning me to a religion where the last word to mankind on the subject of how things ought to be and what ought to be done is a book.

I profess Christianity where the last word is a person and a dynamic personal influence.

The only people who seem to be wasting their time here are those claiming that it's a matter of taste and then acting as if there was a moral absolutism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You don't have to be a Christian to think that nobody is perfect.

That doesn't sound like Rhiannon - but it does looks like a straw man.

How do you mean?

[BeRational]

Start with the conclusion why don't you?
I think you are assigning me to a religion where the last word to mankind on the subject of how things ought to be and what ought to be done is a book.

I profess Christianity where the last word is a person and a dynamic personal influence.

The only people who seem to be wasting their time here are those claiming that it's a matter of taste and then acting as if there was a moral absolutism.

You have concluded that morality is objective, and yet you cannot demonstrate that it is, and all the evidence we have shows that it is subjective. So, you are guilty of starting with your conclusion.

[bluehillside Retd.]

...and a dynamic personal influence.

Hey, Nicholas Marks is back!

...acting as if there was a moral absolutism.

This "keep repeating the lie in the hope that you'll believe it yourself if you do it often enough" schtick seems to have got Trollboy hooked. I've met plenty of moral probabilists (I am one!), but never someone who acts as if there was moral absolutism. Outside of lunatic asylums and the religious orders, are there any such people?

[Gordon]

How do you mean?

C'mon, Vlad - my comments were obvious: I don't think anyone is perfect, and I think you were misrepresenting Rhiannon via a straw man.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You have concluded that morality is objective, and yet you cannot demonstrate that it is, and all the evidence we have shows that it is subjective. So, you are guilty of starting with your conclusion.

Well we are right back into proving God then.
I'm just happy to flag up the contradictions in moral relativism and would like to know why you cling on to it like a concrete life belt. I expect Hillside to have a stab at that one.

My own journey to God did take me through moral relativism......and it is found wanting.

As you know I have limited tolerance for turdpolishing and am now interested in how atheist moral realists justify their position. I think you should listen to them in the first instance.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gordon,

C'mon, Vlad - my comments were obvious: I don't think anyone is perfect, and I think you were misrepresenting Rhiannon via a straw man.

Trollboy? Attempting a straw man?

Say it ain't so Gordon, say it ain't so!

I decided a while back only to reply to him when his posts weren't straw men versions of what I'd actually said...

...it's been months now 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

C'mon, Vlad - my comments were obvious: I don't think anyone is perfect, and I think you were misrepresenting Rhiannon via a straw man.

Sorry Gordon that was meant to be a reply to BeRationals post.....not yours.

However since moral relativism boils down to nobody being actually imperfect if you are a moral relativist you will have just contradicted yourself.

[Gordon]

Gordon,

Trollboy? Attempting a straw man?

Say it ain't so Gordon, say it ain't so!

Sadly, I can't - I cannot tell a lie.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Gordon,

Trollboy? Attempting a straw man?

Say it ain't so Gordon, say it ain't so!

I decided a while back only to reply to him when his posts weren't straw men versions of what I'd actually said...

...it's been months now 

Yes that's months I haven't been abused by Hillside by him calling me troll boy.

[BeRational]

Well we are right back into proving God then.
I'm just happy to flag up the contradictions in moral relativism and would like to know why you cling on to it like a concrete life belt. I expect Hillside to have a stab at that one.

My own journey to God did take me through moral relativism......and it is found wanting.

As you know I have limited tolerance for turdpolishing and am now interested in how atheist moral realists justify their position. I think you should listen to them in the first instance.

You are the one that claims moral objective values.

Therefore YOU have the burden of proof.

Demonstrate a moral value that is OBJECTIVELY true.

I bet you can't, and if you can't you must stop saying that morality is objective.