Search results

Yes, but now how you perceive it.

To each his own indeed.

Really? Wouldn't you say raping a child is objectively immoral?

Incorrect. Eve was tempted by the snake because she agreed with the snake that there should be no reason while God should know the secrets and mysteries of the world while they should just remain obediantly ignorant. Techincally, it implies man's will to rebel against God. This is the lesson in...

Objective morality is not objective in the sense that everyone believes in it but rather is true regardless of whether people do or do not believe in it.

This would mean that objective morality and sucjective morality are both right. But if objective morality is right, then subjective morality cannot be right.

What? No, that's not what I said. I said that it was NOT meant to be interpreted in the sense that knowledge was evil but should rather be taken in the sense that egoism was.

Independantly realize morality is objective, that it does need a transcendent cause. No one is forced to believe this thus tehre is no conflict with free will.

Not exactly. It does not have to symbolize man's demonic need for knowledge but rather man's demonic need to be greater, more powerful, and more potent than God. That's how I see it.

He said he is a moral person without needing God to tell him what to do. That is not my argument, that is not anyone's argument in fact.

He also implis that objective morality is an undeniable reality, it would be hypocritical not to admit this. This does not at all contradict with a transcedent being producing these laws.

You can independatly realize this can you not?

You don't honestly think the story of Adam and Eve should be taken literally do you? You do understand that it serves as a moral lesson and not as an actual event in history yes?

If they were, you just proved otherwise. Yes, because nothing would give me more satisfaction in my life. It serves us greatly and like I mentioned we are gradually revealing objective moral truths. Is it really farfetched to say that in 200 years we will have much more absolute truths...

His argument is not the same as mine ofcourse but.. "First, it is important to understand that the skeptic answer can be seen as simply absurd and hypocrite. Most atheists would not accept subjectivist answers in any other area (except perhaps some nihilists), especially things like science...

I'm not saying I agree with him. But he does make a few good points about objective morality despite being an atheist.

It's so sad that some people refuse to read the argument first before arguing against it.

Err.. Some atheists do believe in objective morality. http://www.strongatheism.net/library/philosophy/case_for_objective_morality

So morality if just a matter of opinion, yes? Thus it also be viable for me to believe in an objective moral law, right?

Nope, for the 12894947567th time, you have it all wrong. It's not that if God exists, objective morality exists, it's the exact opposite. If objective morality exists then God must exist as a transcendent being that has implemented these objective laws. Clear? No imaginary stuff here, except...