Hitler

Originally posted by FMF
I would believe that he was wrong. Wouldn't you? Again, what do you think you are achieving by attaching words like "objectively" to your expression of a moral belief that is the same as mine?

Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met without biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc., of a sentient subject.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If your view that 'rape is wrong' is objectively true it means rape is always wrong regardless of the circumstance. Is there a circumstance when you would say the statement 'rape is wrong' is not true?

If you want to label my view that rape is morally wrong as "objectively true", then go ahead, be my guest. I feel no need to. Just as I feel you offer no extra gravitas to your views by insisting over and over and over and over again that they are "objectively true".

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth ...[text shortened]... opinions, etc., of a sentient subject.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

Your unilateral declarations that your opinions are "objectively true" and "universally true" and "absolutely true" are in every single way the product of your individual preferences, assumptions, biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. You going on and on and on and on about how your condemnation of rape is "objective" and that my condemnation of rape "makes no logical sense" is one of your rhetorical gimmicks.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Is there a circumstance when you would say the statement 'rape is wrong' is not true?

I have already given you an answer to this question. Why are you asking it again?

Originally posted by FMF
If you want to label my view that rape is morally wrong as "objectively true", then go ahead, be my guest. I feel no need to. Just as I feel you offer no extra gravitas to your views by insisting over and over and over and over again that they are "objectively true".

Of course you feel no need to acknowledge the existence of a universal moral law because then you would have to be open to the possibility of a law maker.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Of course you feel no need to acknowledge the existence of a universal moral law because then you would have to be open to the possibility of a law maker.

I feel no need to acknowledge as being credible your ludicrously pretentious and self-obsessed claims that your superstitions and opinions constitute a "universal moral law" .

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Of course you feel no need to acknowledge the existence of a universal moral law because then you would have to be open to the possibility of a law maker.

Would you be unable to act in a morally sound way without your belief in Jesus?

FMF: You once argued that a person getting angry with their sibling was "equally as evil as" murdering 6,000,000 people and you cited that as a "universal truth".

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
I never cited that as a universal truth it I was merely giving my interpretation of a particular verse in the Bible.

You interpret the words "you shall not bear false testimony against your neighbour" to mean that you cannot deceive a criminal posing a danger to your children, and you declare this interpretation of yours to be a "universal truth".

But then you interpret some other words from the Bible to mean someone 'angry with his brother' is being as "evil" as people gassing Jews in death camps, both worthy of the same punishment.

But you declare this interpretation of yours not to be a "universal truth" because to do so is inconvenient to you (in so far as it makes you seem like an idiotic ideologue).

And you'd have us believe that this blatant cherry picking is somehow "objective", "absolute", not a result of any "personal preference", and that all these self-aggrandizing declarations about what are, after all, merely your personal subjective views, choices and priorities, renders the moral codes of other people meaningless and illogical?

There's more than a wee bit of puffed-up delusion on your part in play here, I'd say.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

Do you believe that the existence of your god figure, as he is defined by the books used in your religion, is something that is "objectively true"?

Originally posted by FMF
Your unilateral declarations that your opinions are "objectively true" and "universally true" and "absolutely true" are in every single way the product of your individual preferences, assumptions, biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. You going on and on and on and on about how your condemnation of rape is "objective" and that my condemnation of rape "makes no logical sense" is one of your rhetorical gimmicks.

My assumption is that the truth revealed in the Bible is objectively true. I assume that objective truth does exist so my condemnation of rape is consistent with my belief that objective truth does exist and that something can be objectively wrong. Your belief that rape is objectively wrong is not consistent with your belief in subjective truth.

Originally posted by FMF
I feel no need to acknowledge as being credible your ludicrously pretentious and self-obsessed claims that your superstitions and opinions constitute a "universal moral law" .

We are both making assumptions about truth and the universe, and your views on morality are not consistent with the assumptions that you have made. You assume that there is no absolute standard for right and wrong yet you say that rape is always wrong.

Originally posted by FMF
You interpret the words "you shall not bear false testimony against your neighbour" to mean that you cannot deceive a criminal posing a danger to your children, and you declare this interpretation of yours to be a "universal truth".

But then you interpret some other words from the Bible to mean someone 'angry with his brother' is being as "evil" as people gas ...[text shortened]... gical?

There's more than a wee bit of puffed-up delusion on your part in play here, I'd say.

I believe the statement, "you shall not bear false testimony against your neighbour" to be a universal truth. The part about deceiving criminals is obviously part of my interpretation of that truth, I have never claimed that my interpretations are universally true. I believe that if you get angry with your brother you are in danger of the fires of hell because Jesus said so, that to me is a universal truth. The fact that I think Adolf Eichmann is also in danger of the fires of hell is based on the fact that the Bible says "outside the kingdom of heaven are murderers..." My opinions and interpretation of said verses are obviously not universal truths. I merely assume that the Bible contains universal truths just like you assume that God has not revealed himself to anyone.

Originally posted by FMF
Do you believe that the existence of your god figure, as he is defined by the books used in your religion, is something that is "objectively true"?

We all make assumptions that we cannot prove. However some of our beliefs are not consistent with our assumptions. If you assume that there is no absolute standard of right and wrong then how can you claim to believe that rape is always wrong?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If you assume that there is no absolute standard of right and wrong then how can you claim to believe that rape is always wrong?

I have told you time and time again what I believe are the sources of our morality. These sources are the same for both of us.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
I merely assume that the Bible contains universal truths just like you assume that God has not revealed himself to anyone.

Well at least you are admitting that your declarations about moral matters are based on things that you assume. Do you think you would you be unable to act in a morally sound way without your assumptions about the Bible?