Fine, I’ll edit that so it no longer contains a subjective description, point taken. 
Not by me. 
1 Like
I believe this should be a separate thread at this point, as we are so far off the original topic, it has gone beyond the horizon.
I’ve created it, head on over if you want to continue schooling me in morality. 
Forum strings often take on a life of their own, so to speak. By requesting people respond to you in a separate string makes responses to what you’ve posted exceedingly difficult. Was that the plan?
No, remember I am relatively new to these forums.
I also want to reaffirm I am attempting to be intellectually honest here, and I also want to bridge the impasse.
Be it my own lack of understanding or yours.
I am beginning to believe the issue is being caused by my own miscomprehension, but I am failing to see where or how.
‘I want to believe as many true things as possible, and disregard as many false things as possible.’ - Matt Dillahunty. A quote I adhere to.
I will also add, I am running out of steam and shall be taking a break, so post your messages and I’ll attempt to tackle them as honestly as I can on my return.
1 Like
If you mean it is objectively immoral to cut short the life of a sentient animal then no, that’s a subjective opinion, as obviously many people would not agree.
How so?
This just a repetition of the claim though, can you explain why it is objectively immoral to harm an animal? You seem to be fixating on whether harm is caused, but that is irrelevant, the point is why do you believe it is objectively immoral to cause harm, rather than just a subjective opinion? After all it is obvious others don’t share this opinion.
No, I stated plainly if one held the subjective opinion that swearing is immoral, then it is an objectively true that removing people’s tongues would stop them swearing, this would not make it objectively moral to remove their tongues though. Just as if one believed it was immoral to harm an animal, then it would be objectively true that being a vegetarian would make this less likely, but it would not make it objectively moral.
That;s a circular reasoning fallacy, and if you’re going to claim something is objectively moral in a debate forum, then yes you absolutely need to explain why you think this.
Why is cutting short someone’s life objectively immoral? Was it immoral to fight Nazi Germany then? That cut short quite a few lives after all. Morals are subjective, they are also relative.
Yes but you have yet to explain why causing harm is objectively immoral?
I think it strongly does if you cannot find even one example.
Without offering a subjective opinion or argument, explain why?
It’s a straw man because I am not disputing when harm is being caused, only that it is a subjective opinion that causing harm is immoral.
Don’t arguments generally do this?
I will only say that I have never seen an example of an objectively moral act, they always involve subjective opinion. This YouTube video explain why all morality is subjective very well, if you are interested take a look.
Either way I’d need sufficient objective evidence that violence is “objectively” immoral, and I am dubious anyone can do this, since morality os also relative.
1 Like
Yes, you made an attempt. Just stick with the difficult to quantify. I also showed you the other side and then 'Stuck with the (Difficult to Quantify). Because THAT IS THE CASE!!
You eat, you kill.
1 Like
I’ve been through this with Sheldon here:
trying to define an objective standard for morality.
I offered “transcendental love”. It was rejected by his highness. 
1 Like
Since no one can offer any objective evidence that morality itself is objective, I remain dubious. If someone could do so I would re-examine my position obviously.
1 Like
There is no objective standard of morality. I reject transcendental love. Now what are you going to do?
3 Likes
He could demonstrate some objective evidence for a love beyond desire, attachment, loss, devotion, sacrifice, forsaking, and beyond a state of relationship. Though he did fail to do this in the previous thread he cited of course. Though even then I’d need a compelling argument and some objective evidence as to why this was evidence for objective morality. I remain dubious I must say.
1 Like
If people follow God as he has asked would this have happened?
Testing actions with the word of God tells us. We all have the obligation to love (not only this man) but each of us. Are any of us perfect? Does the fact that we are naturally imperfect excuse us?
“If I speak with the tongues of mankind and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. And if I give away all my possessions to charity, and if I surrender my body so that I may glory, but do not have love, it does me no good. Love is patient, love is kind, it is not jealous; love does not brag, it is not arrogant. It does not act disgracefully, it does not seek its own benefit; it is not provoked, does not keep an account of a wrong suffered, it does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; it keeps every confidence, it believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away with; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away with. For we know in part and prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away with. When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully, just as I also have been fully known. But now faith, hope, and love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love.”
1 Corinthians 13:1-13
Are you asserting that everyone has an obligation to love everyone?
If so, that seems exceedingly silly to me.
1 Like
Which god, and why do you ask?
The rest is just preaching sorry, did you want to join the debate?
Yes it is obligatory. Then you are okay when people are rude towards you? Arrogant towards you? Lie to you?
1 Like
Obligatory? Horse shit!
As to your second, etc. statements, what has that got to do with love for everyone being obligatory? Obligatory according to whom?
2 Likes
I don’t believe you, offer some objective evidence to support this claim.
That’s a false dichotomy fallacy, those are clearly not the only two choices we are faced with, love everyone or be rude, arrogant and lie to them, that’s asinine nonsense. There are billions of people I do none of those to, even people I meet and know I don’t need to do any of those things to.
What about how rude you’re being by preaching to us in your post above?
1 Like
No chance in hell Mr. Goody 2 shoes. I just want other people to leave me the hell alone, not “love” me.
If I don’t like the way other people treat me(apart from my family), I’ll gladly tell them to go fuck themselves.
1 Like
[
“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household” (Matthew 10:34-36).
“If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: but thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God”
](Deuteronomy 13:6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, w | King James Version (KJV) | Download The Bible App Now)
Yeah, shit like this could never happen if you followed God.
15 Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them.
16 For everything in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but from the world.
5 The arrogant cannot stand in your presence. You hate all who do wrong;
6 I hate those who cling to worthless idols; as for me, I trust in the LORD
2 In their own eyes they flatter themselves too much to detect or hate their sin.
10 Let those who love the LORD hate evil, for he guards the lives of his faithful ones and delivers them from the hand of the wicked.
1 There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens:3 a time to kill and a time to heal, a time to tear down and a time to build,8 a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace.
Your God sounds like an IDIOT!
4 Likes