Search results

Not really incorrect. To each his own. That's a rather Fundamentalist interpretation of the story though.

Which is what I said. If that were true we would see evidence, instead we see evidence every day that show us there is no objective morality.

Excuse me. How the the need or want to gain knowledge be man evil? The attempt to gain knowledge isn't ungodly. Adam wasn't trying to run God's block he just wanted to gain knowledge other than what he had. He wasn't trying to be better than god merely better than himself.

You're trying to have it every way. This is just getting silly now. The ability to independently realize morality is up to the individual. If it existed whether or not people were able to realize it then it would be empirically detectable. Morality is not empirically detectable.

How is it hypocritical to accept objective morality without any for of proof? He more than contradicts himself by originally noting that morality comes from knowledge just like things you learn at school (biology is his example). Then he goes on to say that we have to accept objective...

How is man's need for knowledge demonic if the gain of knowledge in a moral sense is also divine?

Independently realize right from wrong? Not immediately. Think about it. When you're born, God doesn't slip the thought of right and wrong into your mind. There isn't even any special god dust floating around to keep you from acting immoral. You go out and experience your environment...

The way religious scholars read it tends to vary. Some, myself included, read it as an allegory that shows man's ability/need to seek knowledge. Either way, if the theory of moral objectivism held true Adam and Eve would have known that the act of stealing the apple was immoral. Some could...

;)

It just says that you can't prove moral objectivism and that morality is knowledge, just like Biology. Both of which are true, neither of which state that morality comes from god.

Like I said it's purely faith based. Basically it takes independent thought and totally gives all the credit to God. Which is pretty hard to believe, even from a religious standpoint, considering the story of Adam and Eve.

He doesn't understand how, he just know it does.

So atheists aren't capable of thought?

What's really sad is when people try arguing for something they themselves don't understand.

You do realize that the fellow steps on his one feet by saying that values are something that must be learned? According to the theory of objective morality these values would be passed down from god, which means that from birth people are morally sound yet we know that isn't the case.

So what's your point? I'm not an atheist and I don't believe in the objective morality.

In the case in which it's being used, the word objective means "from god" and the word subjective means "from man". So in order to accept objective morality you have to deny that man is incapable of independent thought and that anything good man ever did was from direct influence of god...

There is no evidence supporting objective morality. It's purely a faith based pursuit. Basically, unless you have a deep belief in God or God's interaction with mankind, you can't believe in objective morality.

Happens to the best of us.

Damn you because it's lingering... LINGERING!