Vengeance is mine saith the LORD, and I shall pay back in full...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Your arguments consisted of nothing but appeal to consequences and a false dichotomy - you appeared to just give up...

No it was more than that. I make no appeal to consequences and it was all pointed out...particularly what an unproductive theory moral relativism is and particularly that it effectively makes no comment on what is right or wrong.

You obviously just see what you want to see.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Some,

Your arguments consisted of nothing but appeal to consequences and a false dichotomy - you appeared to just give up...

Quite so, underpinned by lashings of assertion - "moral relativism is disproven because, um, well, because I say so OK?"

What's odd is that - if he actually did have an argument for his binary model (objective morality vs not "real" morality) then presumably he'd have bothered using it instead. Maybe too he could have shared with us why it's perfectly possible for people to have and to act on "real" opinions on all sorts of other matters – the law, the arts etc – without recourse to claims of absolutes, but for some unknown reason he carves out morality as a special case.

As always with Trollboy, he'll never answer a question though so I guess we'll never know.

Ah well.

[Rhiannon]

I thought it was funny which at the end of the day is what counts.

Impressively Christ-like. Go you.

[bluehillside Retd.]

I make no appeal to consequences and it was all pointed out...

Okaaaaayyyy....

particularly what an unproductive theory moral relativism...

...and there comes an appeal to consequences. Priceless!

...is and particularly that it effectively makes no comment on what is right or wrong.

...closely followed by the flat wrong assertion with no argument of any kind to support it. Maybe he should at least let all those moral philosophers know that they're not commenting on right and wrong after all, at least according to his bonkers binary model?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Okaaaaayyyy....

...and there comes an appeal to consequences. Priceless!

...closely followed by the flat wrong assertion with no argument of any kind to support it. Maybe he should at least let all those moral philosophers know that they're not commenting on right and wrong after all, at least according to the bonkers binary model?

I need not say there is therefore moral reality. I might say that there could be.
All I have done is to call into question, what of morality is left if no moral position is right or wrong which is the conclusion of moral relativism.

In other words how does moral relativity define morality?

On you go then.

[bluehillside Retd.]

I need not say there is therefore moral reality. I might say that there could be.

In which Trollboy attempts a negative proof fallacy - there could be a invisible teapot orbiting the sun too. So?

All I have done is to call into question, what of morality is left if no moral position is right or wrong which is the conclusion of moral relativism.

In which Trollboy lies about what moral relativism entails by attempting to sneak in the notion that "right" and "wrong" must be absolute to be "real" - something moral relativism neither claims nor requires. 

In other words how does moral relativity define morality?

In which Trollboy forgets that he's been told many times already that morality is "defined" probabilistically, just like matters of law, the arts etc are defined probabilistically too with no apparent conceptual difficulties.   

On you go then.

In which Trollboy attempts the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

[Stranger]

No argument from me, what is God?? Your conscience, the air we breathe, water, a neuron sparking away inside our tiny minds, it's all God, God is no-thing, Wigs is crazy, God is everything and more.

I still don't see why you want to call all that "god" (and associate it with religion and church) and what, exactly, the "and more" bit is...     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which Trollboy attempts a negative proof fallacy - there could be a invisible teapot orbiting the sun too. So?

In which Trollboy lies about what moral relativism entails by attempting to sneak in the notion that "right" and "wrong" must be absolute to be "real" - something moral relativism neither claims nor requires. 

In which Trollboy forgets that he's been told many times already that morality is "defined" probabilistically, just like matters of law, the arts etc are defined probabilistically too with no apparent conceptual difficulties.   

In which Trollboy attempts the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

If one is promoting moral relativism that is a positive assertion and you have no less a burden of proof so go ahead Hot shot.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which Trollboy attempts a negative proof fallacy - there could be a invisible teapot orbiting the sun too. So?

In which Trollboy lies about what moral relativism entails by attempting to sneak in the notion that "right" and "wrong" must be absolute to be "real" - something moral relativism neither claims nor requires. 

In which Trollboy forgets that he's been told many times already that morality is "defined" probabilistically, just like matters of law, the arts etc are defined probabilistically too with no apparent conceptual difficulties.   

In which Trollboy attempts the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

Bluehillside and another ultimate ''Four candles'' gambit.

[Stranger]

All I have done is to call into question, what of morality is left if no moral position is right or wrong which is the conclusion of moral relativism.

In other words how does moral relativity define morality?

The question was answered repeatedly - you just don't like, and won't accept, that it's complicated and messy, rather than clear-cut and objective.

This is a classic appeal to consequences: a textbook example.

[bluehillside Retd.]

If one is promoting moral relativism that is a positive assertion and you have no less a burden of proof so go ahead Hot shot.

In which Trollboy attempts the going nuclear fallacy - "Hey, if I'm guessing so must you be even though all the observable evidence for moral relativism is conceptually equivalent to the evidence for legal relativism, aesthetic relativism etc with which I have no problem because I don't use those examples as supposed evidence for "God":

http://stephenlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/going-nuclear.html

[Stranger]

If one is promoting moral relativism that is a positive assertion and you have no less a burden of proof so go ahead Hot shot.

Objective morality would require that it exists is some form that is independent of the opinions and attitudes in individuals' minds and codified in the various laws of various cultures. It up to you to provide some evidence for that. Something you have spectacularly failed to do...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Bluehillside and another ultimate ''Four candles'' gambit.

In which Trollboy posts four mistakes, receives four rebuttals in response and then attempts a diversionary avoidance post...

...while still his eager audience awaits his explanation finally of why morals must be absolute to be "real", to have "authority" etc, but the law, the arts etc don't have to be.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Objective morality would require that it exists is some form that is independent of the opinions and attitudes in individuals' minds and codified in the various laws of various cultures. It up to you to provide some evidence for that. Something you have spectacularly failed to do...

Moral relativism is predicated on moral realism being wrong.

It states that no idea of Good or evil has primacy over any other
but what are these notions of Good or bad that they have determined have no primacy? Moral relativity cannot say even though these ideas are supposedly intrinsic to it.

It isn't even wrong, answers nothing and doesn't arbitrate and once you know it's truth(how could one?) you couldn't honestly act in anyway to favour one position over another.

[Khatru]

You are so out of touch that you have no idea that the children of God, trust their maker.

Abraham, knew God had promised the covenant promise through Issac.
He had faith that even if Isaac died that somehow God could raise him from the dead and do all he had promised.
But more than anything Abraham loved God not just because of the promise but because God was who he said he was.

God had never intended for Abrahams son to die and even provided a sacrifice. It also taught a lesson that human sacrifice
was not something God wanted. Abraham never sacrificed his servants or people to God.
Abraham so loved God he was willing to sacrifice his own son. Which showed he genuinely had a relationship with Gd.
God so loved the world that he gave his only son that whosoever believeth on him should not perish but have eternal life.
Not sacrificed as a an animal or ritually, Christ paid the price that sinners paid for punishment according to the Law.

We see the person who wrongly promises to sacrifice the first thing to greet him for winning in battle is the mans only daughter.
The man should not have promised God something God does not want. Human sacrifices are an abomination to him.
But his daughter upon hearing willingly gives her life to keep her Fathers promise.

Her life was not his to give. She willingly gave it up.  It showed two things... Genuine faith and belief in God and how we should not to others what we do not want done to us. God just wants thanks and that is the sacrifice acceptable to him to do the right thing.

We see that Abrahams trust was being tested and his love of God.
He loved God so much he would not hold his son back. But we see God did not want him to sacrifice his son and never intended him to sacrifice his son. The LORD God provided an alternative sacrifice.
It was clear at the very beginning that God does not want and never has wanted human Sacrifices.
He just wants us to love him and clearly that love would not include human sacrifice.
He also wanted us to love others. It is a clear message.

The moral of the above tale of woe being "Never leave your child alone with a Fundamental Christian."

So, remember a few weeks ago when I first asked you whether you'd kill a child if your deity of choice commanded it?

Why didn't you just say "Yes" back then and you could have spared us the histrionics.

[Khatru]

So if god asked you to sacrifice one of your children, you would obey trusting it to know best?

In a New York Minute!

[Khatru]

The resurrection of Christ can be proved. If you obey his words you will know if what he says is true.
Try it. But the truth is the failing is on your own part. You won't try it.

Remember, back then Jesus' resurrection was no big deal.

[Khatru]

The resurrection of Christ can be proved. If you obey his words you will know if what he says is true.
Try it. But the truth is the failing is on your own part. You won't try it.

Sorry

I forgot to ask you to share your proof with us.  Show us that your god of choice is for real and I'll await your name going i to the history books as the first person to demonstrate that their ju-ju is real.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Moral relativism is predicated on moral realism being wrong.

In which Trollboy fails to realise that moral relativism is no more predicated on "moral realism" being wrong than natural childbirth theory is predicated on stork theory being wrong.

It states that no idea of Good or evil has primacy over any other

In which Trollboy tells another lie about moral relativism, failing to spot that the arguments of moral relativists propose that some positions are merely to be preferred over others on the basis of the available evidence and reasoning, and thus are probabilistically right or wrong. You know, like judges do in courts of law when they exercise their authority on the same conceptual basis. 

...but what are these notions of Good or bad that they have determined have no primacy? Moral relativity cannot say even though these ideas are supposedly intrinsic to it.

In which Trollboy repeats the lie as his premise and attempts an argument from ignorance fallacy on the back of it.

It isn't even wrong, answers nothing and doesn't arbitrate and once you know it's truth(how could one?) you couldn't honestly act in anyway to favour one position over another.

In which Trollboy tells a few more fibs and then blunders straight back into an argumentum ad consequentiam. Again.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which Trollboy fails to realise that moral realism is no more predicated on "moral realism" being wrong than natural childbirth theory is predicated on stork theory being wrong.

In which Trollboy tells another lie about moral relativism, failing to spot that the arguments of moral relativists propose that some positions are merely to be preferred over others on the basis of the available evidence and reasoning, and thus are probabilistically right or wrong. 

In which Trollboy repeats the lie as his premise and attempts an argument from ignorance fallacy on the back of it.

In which Trollboy tells a few more fibs and then blunders straight back into an argumentum ad consequentiam. Again.

Well at least some effort at describing what moral relativism is although his idea of something probably being right or wrong is not in the spirit of actual moral relativism...........an E minus I'm afraid ......................and of course moral relativism and it's criticisms are available on Wikipedia.

[Stranger]

Moral relativism is predicated on moral realism being wrong.

It states that no idea of Good or evil has primacy over any other
but what are these notions of Good or bad that they have determined have no primacy? Moral relativity cannot say even though these ideas are supposedly intrinsic to it.

It isn't even wrong, answers nothing and doesn't arbitrate and once you know it's truth(how could one?) you couldn't honestly act in anyway to favour one position over another.

Another appeal to consequences and totally ignoring the problem facing your own position (yet again).

Look, it really isn't hard to imagine why we might have a collective sense of morality, without it being fixed or objective. We have, as humans, certain evolved traits; cooperation, empathy and so on. Out of those come some sort of sense of the "right way to behave" (observed in other animals too). It is then complicated by our sophisticated communication and social structures. The result being a sort of informal contract of behaviour. Obviously this varies from time to time and culture to culture.

It's an important part of all our lives, so we argue about it, try to set ideals and so on.

Now, why not tell us where you think objective morality might reside and give even the hint of a smidgen of evidence for it...?  (As opposed to making up shit about the alternatives and telling us about the nasty consequences.)

[bluehillside Retd.]

Well at least some effort at describing what moral relativism is although his idea of something probably being right or wrong is not in the spirit of actual moral relativism...........an E minus I'm afraid ......................and of course moral relativism and it's criticisms are available on Wikipedia.

In which Trollboy keeps on lying in the hope that no-one notices that relativistic moral positions no more claim or require the existence of absolutes than do relativistic legal or aesthetic opinions to be considered sufficiently probabilistically right or wrong – ie, "real" enough – to enable the exercise of their "authority".

[Dicky Underpants]

illumination by the holy spirit.

Sass has known God via the holy spirit since childhood. She believes Christ was not and is not God. You presumably believe he was and is.

[Khatru]

Dear Khatru,

Are you kiddin! the price of a pint in Brigton, I could be drunk as a skunk for months, and I don't think you get many Matt Mcginn impersonators in sunny Brigton, he doesn't sing the right songs or wrong songs depending on the colour of yer vest

Gonnagle.

I have to confess that in the days when I drank in Brigton I never saw any Matt McGinn impersonators.  The Park Bar, The Bell and The Regent being my inns of choice.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Dicky,

Sass has known God via the holy spirit since childhood. She believes Christ was not and is not God. You presumably believe he was and is.

Perhaps Trollboy got the 20 watt illumination but Sassy got the 40 watt version.

Or maybe vice versa.