Premise: Objective morals do not exist

Fetchmyjunk: [A] someone getting angry with his sibling about something, and [B] someone arranging for the extermination of 6,000,000 human beings in 'industrial' death camps

Originally posted by @dj2becker
I cannot say for sure whether or not it is in fact equally evil.

But you did. "Equally evil", you insisted. Repeatedly. And stood by the assertion for months and months. Now you say that you're not sure anymore? Is this what you being "objective" looks like in practice?

Originally posted by @fmf
But you did. "Equally evil", you insisted. Repeatedly. And stood by the assertion for months and months. Now you say that you're not sure anymore? Is this what you being "objective" looks like in practice?

If the Bible says that it is unequivocally 'equally evil' then it is. If it doesn't, that is open to personal interpretation. The Bible clears says that if you get angry with your brother you are subject to judgement which means it is wrong.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If the Bible says that it is unequivocally 'equally evil' then it is.

You insisted that they - anger-with-sibling and murdering 6 million people - are "equally evil". Were you being "objective"?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
The Bible clears says that if you get angry with your brother you are subject to judgement which means it is wrong.

You're entitled to your personal opinion about it - bolstered as it is by your superstitions - even if it does sound daft, especially when you equate it with the Holocaust.

Originally posted by @fmf
You insisted that they - anger-with-sibling and murdering 6 million people - are "equally evil". Were you being "objective"?

If my view was not supported by scripture it would not be 'objective' in the sense that I could argue with it.

Originally posted by @fmf
You're entitled to your personal opinion about it - bolstered as it is by your superstitions - even if it does sound daft, especially when you equate it with the Holocaust.

It must be fun deciding what is right and wrong when there is no single correct answer to a moral question.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If my view was not supported by scripture it would not be 'objective' in the sense that I could argue with it.

Nothing you say about morality is "objective". What you insisted - for months and months of debate - to be "true" about the "evil" of angry siblings and the equally "evil" "evil" of mass murderers was utter nonsense. Utter subjective, superstitious, pretentious nonsense. You're entitled to your opinion that referring to your personal opinions as being "objective" means something to people who are not members of your religion, but it doesn't.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
It must be fun deciding what is right and wrong when there is no single correct answer to a moral question.

All adults use their moral compasses to navigate their way through life's tricky landscape of complicated decisions and dilemmas. Which aspects of it are "fun" and not "fun" in the minds of my fellow free moral agents is something I don't know about. You are free to speculate if you want to.

Originally posted by @fmf
Nothing you say about morality is "objective". What you insisted - for months and months of debate - to be "true" about the "evil" of angry siblings and the equally "evil" "evil" of mass murderers was utter nonsense. Utter subjective, superstitious, pretentious nonsense. You're entitled to your opinion that referring to your personal opinions as being "objective" means something to people who are not members of your religion, but it doesn't.

Nothing anyone says about morality is ever 'objective' to you, so no surprise there. You can't even admit that rape is objectively wrong.

Originally posted by @fmf
All adults use their moral compasses to navigate their way through life's tricky landscape of complicated decisions and dilemmas. Which aspects of it are "fun" and not "fun" in the minds of my fellow free moral agents is something I don't know about. You are free to speculate if you want to.

Without an objective standard of morality life is like flying a plane in a storm without a compass to give you direction. Good luck with that.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Without an objective standard of morality life is like flying a plane in a storm without a compass to give you direction. Good luck with that.

I have already addressed this kind of comment. Why don't you engage the details of what I posted? You have blanked out what I have argued and described and keep repeating your slogan-type statements over and over and over again. What I have explained to you is nothing even remotely like "flying a plane in a storm without a compass". It's as if you haven't read or understood anything I have said.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Nothing anyone says about morality is ever 'objective'...

Nor is anything you say about it.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Without an objective standard of morality life is like flying a plane in a storm without a compass to give you direction. Good luck with that.

At the other joke of yours, your thread “A follower of Satan”, I explained in detail the reasons why your beliefs as regards the OP in the context of the Christian perspective are not tenable.

When your subjective beliefs even about issues related to the core tenets of your religion are false, and when you subjectively evaluate your pseudoscientific creationist superstitions as better theories of reality than the validated herenow scientific theories of reality, what exactly makes you feel so sure that your subjectivism could ever be “objective”? If you think this time you can prove that “objectivity” is something more than our consensus regarding our collective subjectivity, kindly please do it
😵

Originally posted by @fmf
Nor is anything you say about it.

I see you have once again dodged the question. Is rape objectively wrong? Yes or No?

Originally posted by @fmf
Nor is anything you say about it.

FMF you cannot even tell me that rape is objectively wrong, that says a lot about where your moral compass is pointing.