Indian triumph

Originally posted by @dj2becker
So how do you know that all religions are false and that none of them contain any truth?

This we discussed before. I have never once claimed that "all religions" don't "contain any truth".

Originally posted by @fmf
Donald Trump is the president of the U.S. = objectively true
The U.S. would be better off with Cory Booker as president = subjective
Roe v Wade legalized abortion in the U.S. in 1973 = objectively true
Roe v Wade is bad law = subjective
Roe v Wade is good law = subjective
People disagree about whether Roe v Wade is good law or bad law = objective

If is impossible for you to be absolutely certain whether or not the statement "God exists" is objectively true. If boils down to faith, which you have seemingly lost along the way.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If is impossible for you to be absolutely certain whether or not the statement "God exists" is objectively true. If boils down to faith, which you have seemingly lost along the way.

Faith is a subjective thing. And that's OK.

Originally posted by @fmf
Faith is a subjective thing. And that's OK.

Unless of course it turns out to be true.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Unless of course it turns out to be true.

Just declare yourself to be very, very certain about the things you believe. Your use of the words "objectively true" to refer to things that even you ~ in what is essentially speculation ~ here concede might merely "turn out to be true" does not alter the fact that the beliefs you are very, very certain about are subjective and such "truths" vary from person to person.

Originally posted by @fmf
Just declare yourself to be very, very certain about the things you believe. Your use of the words "objectively true" to refer to things that even you ~ in what is essentially speculation ~ here concede might merely "turn out to be true" does not alter the fact that the beliefs you are very, very certain about are subjective and such "truths" vary from person to person.

You seem to have missed the point I was making. You making moral judgements and referring to things as 'grotesque and demented' within a framework of assumed moral relativity is utterly self defeating.

Originally posted by @fmf
This we discussed before. I have never once claimed that "all religions" don't "contain any truth".

So how do you establish what is true and what isn't?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
You seem to have missed the point I was making. You making moral judgements within a framework of assumed moral relativity is utterly self defeating.

No. You are mistaken. We all get our morals from the same process. They serve the same function for us all. They are a personal guide to interacting with other people. They are a set of subjective sensibilities and points of view that are constructed from the various events and perspectives that we are subjected to. They shift and adapt accordingly. You declaring your morals to be "objective" on account of the fact that you are superstitious about some sort divine being - that you personally identify with worship - and which is at the centre of some religion or other that you just so happen to be an aherent of - alters none of this.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
So how do you establish what is true and what isn't?

If it's about 'which is the president of the U.S.?' then I look it up if necessary.

If it's about whether Hinduism is "true" or not, it's just a subjective thing rooted in faith or lack of faith.

Originally posted by @fmf
No. You are mistaken. We all get our morals from the same process. They serve the same function for us all. They are a personal guide to interacting with other people. They are a set of subjective sensibilities and points of view that are constructed from the various events and perspectives that we are subjected to. They shift and adapt accordingly. You declari ...[text shortened]... tre of some religion or other that you just so happen to be an aherent of - alters none of this.

If God does not exist and has not inscribed our hearts with the same moral sensibilities then yes all morals are subjective as they should be. Nothing would ever be objectively wrong. Why then would every sane human being agree that it is objectively wrong to kill someone for no reason whatsoever?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Why then would every sane human being agree that it is objectively wrong to kill someone for no reason whatsoever?

Nature and nurture.

Originally posted by @fmf
Nature and nurture.

That doesn’t seem to give you a leg to stand on when it comes to making moral assertions and actually defending them as being the right ones.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
That doesn’t seem to give you a leg to stand on when it comes to making moral assertions and actually defending them as being the right ones.

It's exactly the same for both of us. Nature and nurture. Your superstitious take on morality is simply part of your nurture. You citing some religious book or other ~ in and of itself ~ does not give you any more or less of "a leg to stand on" than I have.

If I think what you do to me is morally unsound and your defence of your actions is weak, then so be it. If you think what I do to you is morally unsound and my defence of my actions is weak, then - once again - so be it.

If the consequences of the actions - some damage or fraud or illegal thing - bring us to a court of law, that court will decide the 'who has a leg to stand on' thing you mentioned. Short of that, we would just have to agree to disagree.

We use our moral codes to navigate our separate ways through life as best we can. We may disagree sometimes about what is "right" and "wrong" - like with homosexual sex. But that's OK because your beliefs and my beliefs are just subjective opinions after all.

Originally posted by @fmf
It's exactly the same for both of us. Nature and nurture. Your superstitious take on morality is simply part of your nurture. You citing some religious book or other ~ in and of itself ~ does not give you any more or less of "a leg to stand on" than I have.

If I think what you do to me is morally unsound and your defence of your actions is weak, then so be ...[text shortened]... l sex. But that's OK because your beliefs and my beliefs are just subjective opinions after all.

So without an objective standard you are saying it’s impossible to know for sure whether or not murdering someone for no reason is wrong for example? Do you think someone that thinks it’s ok doesn't have any more or less of "a leg to stand on" than someone who think it's wrong?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
So without an objective standard you are saying it’s impossible to know for sure whether or not murdering someone for no reason is wrong for example? Do you think someone that thinks it’s ok doesn't have any more or less of "a leg to stand on" than someone who think it's wrong?

I wouldn't murder someone for no reason because it would go against my moral code. If someone else's moral code did not preclude them from murdering someone for no reason, and they went ahead and did it, I'd hope that they were caught, prosecuted and incarcerated.