Create account

replied 1770d
That's patently false. As an atheist i am an objective moralist. Religjous people don't have true objective morals because they just do what they're told.
1 / 23
replied 1770d
He said no *unified* moral rule set, meaning it's different for almost every atheist. I would agree with this statement, in my experience that seems to be the case
replied 1770d
That's a strange argument. It doesn't matter what others believe if you believe the objective truth.
replied 1769d
Not all matters can be objective. It is impossible for all things to be objective. Many things people see as objective are subjective. Much or our world is our conceptualization.
2
1,789
replied 1769d
You cannot objectively assert that. According to the law of the excluded middle, all propositions are P or !P. That means all opinions are either true or false.
replied 1769d
Objective and subjective things can both be true or false. It can be true that I hold an opinion. "I think burgers taste good" is a subjective statement, and a true statement.
1
1,234
replied 1770d
I'm clarifying SilentSam's original argument. Saying that atheists have "no unified moral rule set" means that each has different morals. There is no objective truth in opinions
2
1,221
replied 1770d
I actually believe that there is only objective truth, and no "opinions". I follow the works of Kant and Rothbard.
1
555
replied 1770d
And I actually don't believe that, so there's one example of how people can have different opinions. To bring it back to Sam's point, this shows we don't have a unified view on this
1
555
replied 1770d
Opinions dont matter to reality is my point. Unification of opinion doesn't mean anything logically or morally.
1
555
replied 1769d
I'm not sure if even that is defensible, if a person has conflicting opinions and is in a position of power, they can matter greatly. For example Hitler's opinions on Jews/Gypsies
1
1,500
replied 1769d
That has nothing to do with moral or logical truth. Your conment is off-topic.
replied 1769d
It isn't off topic, but I'm beginning to doubt if you even know what you're talking about
1
3,000
replied 1769d
So you are only talking about a small subset of truths, and statements?
replied 1768d
I don't understand your question.
replied 1768d
You specified "moral or logical truth" in response to Hibuddha's question. So I am asking if you were only talking about that subset of true statements on the issue of objective truth.
replied 1768d
Moral truth is a subset, logical truth is the whole genre.
replied 1768d
So was his example off topic? If a person subjective opinion has power to enforce their subjective opinion on others, one could say subjective opinion can matter objectively.
replied 1768d
In that instance its not the opinion that matters, but the guns.
1
555
replied 1768d
You could say the guns enforced the opinions. I think it was the influence that spread the opinion to others though. The ideology mattered.
replied 1768d
No, your ideology doesn't objectively "matter" just because you can enforce it on others. You're playing a word game here.
replied 1767d
The ideology was not enforced so much as it spread. The people were not against the ideology.
replied 1770d
That's a VERY strange argument, opinions aren't always in response to objective, factual circumstances
replied 1770d
For example, the question "What should we do tonight?" has no objective truth, it forms entirely subjective opinions depending on who you ask


About Privacy Terms Stats