19 Feb 22
@fmf saidWe can discuss being wrong about things like math, yes 2+2 is 4, not 6, but suggesting someone can sleep with another's wife against her will means her will; her desire not to be touched has a value that another's lust doesn't get to override simply because they want what they want. If we were animals and morals were meaningless, which is what having none means, what is wrong with hurting others if my desires are all that matters to me? What makes another life and possessions something I need to respect?
I debate and discuss things. I have disagreements with people. Is that what you mean by "slighted"?
19 Feb 22
@kellyjay saidOur moral compasses are "a means to measure" and they are subjective. If, without your Christian faith, you would believe "the only means of truth is strength", then perhaps your Christian faith is a positive thing for you.
Better or worse, both require a means to measure, and if the means to measure is purely subjective, then you may as well say the only means of truth is strength because nature teaches only the strong survive.
- Joined
- 06 May 15
- Moves
- 27445
19 Feb 22
@fmf saidSo your moral logic directs you to challenge the beliefs of others, without any regard for whatever knock-on damage might occur as a result of that challenge and the demolition of their beliefs?
You should take personal responsibility for the moral logic you espouse, just as I do.
Wouldn't that make you a proud egocentric jackass with a lack of joined-up thinking?
19 Feb 22
@fmf saidYou use the word 'supernatural' as if that alone means what is being said cannot be true because of the word 'supernatural.' If it is true and can only be because there is the so-called "supernatural," then what that means is there is a reason to accept that what is called supernatural has something to do with all that is natural. It isn't an automatic reason to reject it.
Good for you. But labelling your subjective opinions - based on your belief in a supernatural being - "objective" doesn't alter the subjective nature of those opinions.
If you are not "wondering where the salt is as [you] devour the neighbour because [you] love the way they taste", merely because of your religion, all well and good - that's good news for your neighbour, isn't it?
@kellyjay saidBut I am NOT "suggesting someone can sleep with another's wife against her will" despite the fact I am not a Christian.
We can discuss being wrong about things like math, yes 2+2 is 4, not 6, but suggesting someone can sleep with another's wife against her will means her will; her desire not to be touched has a value that another's lust doesn't get to override simply because they want what they want.
If being a Christian is the only way you can avoid believing you "...can sleep with another's wife against her will", then people's wives in your vicinity are fortunate, I suppose.
19 Feb 22
@kellyjay saidI use the word "supernatural" in order to remind you that your speculation about "supernatural" things does not generate "absolute" and "objective" truths.
You use the word 'supernatural' as if that alone means what is being said cannot be true because of the word 'supernatural.'
19 Feb 22
@fmf saidI have been saying exactly what I mean, over and over. Why do you think one is better than another if it is subjective? You want it both ways; tell me why my way is somehow deficient while yours is somehow more honest and authentic. Why argue something that is all meaningless at the heart of the matter if every answer is correct?
If you don't want to take personal responsibility for your moral actions and your beliefs about morality, that's OK. But just say so. Just come out and say so rather than hide behind the question "why?"
19 Feb 22
@kellyjay saidI don't "reject" those beliefs of yours ~ inspired by the "supernatural" ~ that my moral compass tells me are sound; what I do reject is your assumption - indeed, your insistence - that your religious faith creates "objectivity".
If it is true and can only be because there is the so-called "supernatural," then what that means is there is a reason to accept that what is called supernatural has something to do with all that is natural. It isn't an automatic reason to reject it.
19 Feb 22
@fmf saidMy speculation doesn't generate any truth, its a speculation. Absolutes and truth are not opinions; even if what we think about something is true when we speak to it, we make assertions nothing more, I could talk about a duck as someone once said, and I would be speaking the truth only as long as I was correctly talking about the duck, my speech about the duck doesn't make it any more real and true, than wrong opinions about it make false.
I use the word "supernatural" in order to remind you that your speculation about "supernatural" things does not generate "absolute" and "objective" truths.
19 Feb 22
@kellyjay saidI have not suggested that your moral compass is not "honest and authentic". No need to poison the well, KellyJay.
You want it both ways; tell me why my way is somehow deficient while yours is somehow more honest and authentic.
I even said that if, in your subjective opinion, your moral logic is superior to mine because you subscribe to a religion, then that is OK by me.
Just about all of the things you declare you do NOT do BECAUSE you believe in Jesus have been moral principles I agree with.
19 Feb 22
@kevin-eleven saidFMF has a head on his shoulders; he can explain his stances. I disagree with him often, but I respect those who can make a case for what they think.
@KellyJay
Please don't feed the trolls. No idea what unresolved childhood issues might have led FMF and divegeester to behave the way they do; however, you can choose not to play on their playground.
19 Feb 22
@kellyjay saidYour opinions about what are and are not "absolute truths" - based on your speculations [and aspirations] regarding supernatural things - are simply opinions and they are entirely subjective.
My speculation doesn't generate any truth, its a speculation. Absolutes and truth are not opinions.