Originally posted by FMF
Do they?

If you disagree feel free to show me how one objective opinion can be more valid than another.

Originally posted by FMF
Do you think your superstitions are "objective"?

I believe in the existence of objective good and evil. I believe certain actions are always wrong regardless of what other people may think. The only way I see that to be logically possible is if there are to exist moral absolutes. Moral absolutes are only possible if there were to exist an objective moral law by which we can differentiate between good and evil. And such an objective moral law requires a moral lawgiver whose authority cannot be challenged. In my mind a God figure fits such a role.

Originally posted by JS357
What criteria are we using for deciding how valid a moral view is?

If there is no objective moral law if would only be our subjective opinions, which would make it impossible in my opinion.

Originally posted by JS357
IOW: What are your criteria of validity?

The existence or non existence of moral absolutes. If they do exist, it would follow logically that one view could be more valid than the other. If they don't exist, I see no reason why they wouldn't be equally valid.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
I believe in the existence of objective good and evil. I believe certain actions are always wrong regardless of what other people may think. The only way I see that to be logically possible is if there are to exist moral absolutes. Moral absolutes are only possible if there were to exist an objective moral law by which we can differentiate between good a ...[text shortened]... a moral lawgiver whose authority cannot be challenged. In my mind a God figure fits such a role.

All this is the result of your subjective opinions stacked one on top of the other until you arrive at what you see as being the "objective" view that the moral stances and interpretations and viewpoints that you espouse are "universal truths", right?

Originally posted by FMF
All this is the result of your subjective opinions stacked one on top of the other until you arrive at what you see as being the "objective" view that the moral stances and interpretations and viewpoints that you espouse are "universal truths", right?

In epistemology, a presupposition relates to a belief system, that is required for the argument to make sense.

I think you are confusing my presuppositions with 'subjective opinions'.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
In epistemology, a presupposition relates to a belief system, that is required for the argument to make sense.

I think you are confusing my presuppositions with 'subjective opinions'.

I think you are confusing unilateral declarations about the supposed "universality" of your personal opinions for "objectivity".

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Yes I cannot accept that the view 'torturing a baby for fun is morally acceptable' is equally valid to the view 'torturing a baby for fun is not morally acceptable'. Why can you?

If you woke up tomorrow not believing in God, would you rush out into the street in search of a baby to torture?!

Your view of humanity is appalling, if it takes belief in a God to make you human.

Originally posted by FMF
I think you are confusing unilateral declarations about the supposed "universality" of your personal opinions for "objectivity".

It seems you don't know what the presuppositions of a belief system are, and what purpose they serve.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
It seems you don't know what the presuppositions of a belief system are, and what purpose they serve.

Your entirely subjective assertions about the bearing you imagine supernatural phenomena have on your personal moral code indeed serve no purpose as far as I am concerned.

All I'm hearing is the circular... there must be moral absolutes because there's a moral law giver, and there must be a moral law giver because 1. I simply cannot imagine there not being one and 2. how else can you explain the moral absolutes that there obviously are, or words to that effect.

I think you should save your "presuppositions" for when you are talking to people with the same superstitions as you.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
If you woke up tomorrow not believing in God, would you rush out into the street in search of a baby to torture?!

Your view of humanity is appalling, if it takes belief in a God to make you human.

If someone did happen to believe it was morally justifiable to do so, why would their opinion be less valid than yours if there are no moral absolutes?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If someone did happen to believe it was morally justifiable to do so, why would their opinion be less valid than yours if there are no moral absolutes?

That reply just completely ignores what I posted, so here it is again:

If you woke up tomorrow not believing in God, would you rush out into the street in search of a baby to torture?!

Your view of humanity is appalling, if it takes belief in a God to make you human.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If you disagree feel free to show me how one objective opinion can be more valid than another.

Give me an example of something that you think is an "objective opinion".

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If you disagree feel free to show me how one objective opinion can be more valid than another.

Sorry this post should have read:

If you disagree feel free to show me how one subjective opinion can be more valid than another if there is no objective criteria by which to judge them.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
That reply just completely ignores what I posted, so here it is again:

If you woke up tomorrow not believing in God, would you rush out into the street in search of a baby to torture?!

Your view of humanity is appalling, if it takes belief in a God to make you human.

Probably not, because I have a God given conscience.

Now would you care to answer my question since I have answered yours?