So, in the list I provided you don't find ANYTHING that is Objectively Wrong? Well, thanks anyway for the warning; I seriously would not want to be around people who take that position.

And that is a striking argument against the value of the atheist opinion.

I read Jon's statement, "reality is not required to be logical," to mean that it is not always intuitive, at least from a human perspective. Quantum theory, for example, is just bizarre - appearing to be very illogical - probably because human's are not capable of intuiting the universe at that scale.

What a dumb response, Mike. You're not even trying.

I guess Jack was right - "You don't get it, but I'll quit repeating myself."

I devote the effort that your insults and You Tube Scholarship deserve!

Although admittedly I can see why you would not want to answer the question about the Objective Morality of the things on that list.

Wow, you really can't read simple written English.


Being an invention of Man, it's a rigidly determined system that sometimes corresponds to reality and sometimes does not.

All men are purple.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates is purple.

So Morality is Subjective, and logic is simply a convention...got it.

And so on what basis is it again that you are criticizing me?

I mean, you don't even have the guts to try and argue that Child Abuse is Objectively Wrong...much less the Holocaust or anything else.
.

Failures in logic; e.g. arguing that because Jack believes that consensus determines A, he must also believe that consensus determines B, where B is not A. And thinking that I wrote anything about my beliefs in subjective or objective morality. And logic isn't a convention, it's a man-made tool that is useful in some situations and useless in others.


I have opinions and the guts to defend them where I decide such defense might be interesting or worthwhile. It's obvious that defending them with you would be neither.

I did not argue that Jack must also believe that consensus determines B is that case, but that it led to inconsitent positions.

Moreover, your syllogism is flawed, by the very first premise; in your view, though, logic is not inherent in the nature of reality (as certain aspects of mathematics are) but is a convention. Even if you call it a man made tool it remains simply a construct that depends on subjective users.

However, I was having a discussion with Jack about Ojective v Subjective morality, and YOU are the one who chose to reply.

But if you do not actually want to discussion the subject, or for some reason you wish to conceal your views, thats fine. However, that is the subject I am discussing.

Ah, the ol' "hope he forgets what I wrote on the last page" dodge. You wrote:


"Determination of morality" is A, "Objective morality" is B. Different things. Yet you obviously claimed that Jack's belief in A means that he "must also believe" in B.

No mention of inconsistent positions there. In your second "argument" for objective morality, you claimed that subjective morality leads to inconsistent positions between different people; but there is no requirement that people's positions must be consistent with others. Fail again.


I can certainly understand your haste to run away from your so-called "positive arguments".

You are conflating the two arguments, and using your own notations to inaccurately restate my position, and nowhere did I claim what Jack "must also believe" about the first instance...those are YOUR words. And of course there is no requirement that people's postions be consistent with others (another Willful Mistatement of my position); but they can't all be right. (Unless of course you twist logic to fit your view of reality.)

And I am certainly discussing my arguments, YOU are the one running away from a discussion of Objective Morality v Subjective Morality that YOU CHOSE TO GET INVOLVED IN.

But I can understand why you would probably want to conceal your postion on these matters.

However, I don't want to assume that improperly, so I will ask your bluntly...

Is there ANY moral position that you believe is Objectively true?

To make it easy, here is a simple one...Do you believe, as an example, that the Holocaust was Objectively Wrong?

Nope. You are conflating 'em. Here's your first one:


"By your own premise" is equivalent to saying what Jack must believe if he believes in subjective morality. No mention of leading to inconsistent positions.

Here's your second one:


There is no conclusion that none of them are wrong; the only justified conclusion from the given premises is that they disagree and we may not be able to determine if any of them are wrong or right. Which is in no way irrational.


I chose to get involved in the sub-thread about your claims that positive arguments for objective morality exist. You haven't presented any that stand up to even the most casual scrutiny.

"I chose to get involved in the sub-thread about your claims that positive arguments for objective morality exist."

Chose to get involved in the "sub-thread"...or running away from the main thread?

But you still conflating, AND misrepresenting, the arguments...I did not claim that morality is determined by consensus, that is Jack's claim. And nowhere did I say what Jack MUST believe...you are simply asserting they must be equivalent.

The second example also demonstrates the irrationality of the inconsistent postions of the Relativists...they most certainly do not believe any of them are "wrong", they are subjectivists.

And apparently you choose not to get involved in the discussion of Objective v Subjective Morality.

So are you running away?

Are you afraid, or perhaps ashamed, to admit that you don't think the Holocaust was Objectively Wrong?

But since you don't accept my arguments, and have willfully misrpresented them and even make things up that I did not say, I will ask you if you have an argument for your position. Or do you maintain that rejecting my argument therefore establishes yours?

Where did Jack say that? Just curious, maybe he did, but I didn't see it.