So Seven, my definition of the word 'objective' was very accurate indeed. Oh, and you just got pwned.
Buy on AliExpress.com
Circumcision, hip or lame? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Martin
- Start date
Buy on AliExpress.com
Back to the topic:
When discussing the matter of snipping the tip or not snipping the tip. It's basically a choice of parental or cultural preference. In western cultures the deed is done shortly after birth, a purely parental decision. In other cultures the deed is done as a passage to manhood, a cultural preference. Either way it really doesn't matter as far as health issues are concerned. It's either you have it or you don't
When discussing the matter of snipping the tip or not snipping the tip. It's basically a choice of parental or cultural preference. In western cultures the deed is done shortly after birth, a purely parental decision. In other cultures the deed is done as a passage to manhood, a cultural preference. Either way it really doesn't matter as far as health issues are concerned. It's either you have it or you don't
I needed to show you that I was using the word 'objectively' soundly, I couldn't explain how exactly so I opted to someone that was able to explain what I wanted to say. Seven's sheer obnoxiousness has led me to do this. In any case, I maintain my opinion on objective morality and I will explain it more clearly and how it does indeed imply God's existence. I will do all this when I have some more time.
The Objective Moral Law argument stems from Dr.William Lane Craig, an esteemed philospher, he uses the definition of an 'objective moral' truth in the same sense tha I have used it the past few days. Meaning that an truth does exist regardless of people's opinions. Seven thought I was using this definition incorrectly, but I wasn't, I was using accordng to Craig's definition which is considered a viable one.
I would like to answer Razielist for a second. If Indeed, relative morality was true, then how can you argue that relative morality was true in the first place. Since you are insinuating that morality is not objective, arguing the relative morality is true is contradicting the very basis of what the philosophy states.
I will respond to your questions some other time.
I would like to answer Razielist for a second. If Indeed, relative morality was true, then how can you argue that relative morality was true in the first place. Since you are insinuating that morality is not objective, arguing the relative morality is true is contradicting the very basis of what the philosophy states.
I will respond to your questions some other time.
The moral argument says that objective morality is evidence for the existence of God. Some even go so far as to say that without God, objective morality would not exist. Why would anybody claim that? Wouldn’t we still feel that people committing genocide and rape is reprehensible even if there were no God? Of course we would. But if the immorality of such behaviors is to be an objective truth that is independent of what we think, then something besides us has to say people shouldn’t behave this way. There has to be some kind of transcendent, fundamental reality that says how we ought to behave. And this transcendent fundamental reality, I argue, is what we call God.
I don't know why you posted that link, but that guy provides you a pretty poor argument. He does however give a working definition of objective when talking about morality:
Morality is objective in the sense that it holds or not regardless of human opinion.
But how the fuck would morality hold regardlss of human opinion?
Morality is objective in the sense that it holds or not regardless of human opinion.
But how the fuck would morality hold regardlss of human opinion?
