You asked me - 'is there such a thing as objective morality?'
Now you need to define the terms before I can answer.
no subtlety here, it's going to be obvious where i'm going with this.
please consider the following scenario.. you're seated on a railway platform bench waiting for your train.
a high speed intercity is about to hurtle through without stopping when you see a small child running to the platforms edge!
You asked me - 'is there such a thing as objective morality?'
Now you need to define the terms before I can answer.
no subtlety here, it's going to be obvious where i'm going with this.
please consider the following scenario.. you're seated on a railway platform bench waiting for your train.
a high speed intercity is about to hurtle through without stopping when you see a small child running to the platforms edge!
I'm not being pedantic but I need you to define your terms.
What do you mean by 'equal' and precisely what do you mean by 'objective morality'?
How does 'objective morality' differ from 'absolute morality' from your perspective?
no subtlety here, it's going to be obvious where i'm going with this.
please consider the following scenario.. you're seated on a railway platform bench waiting for your train.
a high speed intercity is about to hurtle through without stopping when you see a small child running to the platforms edge!
ignore - see below
no subtlety here, it's going to be obvious where i'm going with this.
please consider the following scenario.. you're seated on a railway platform bench waiting for your train.
a high speed intercity is about to hurtle through without stopping when you see a small child running to the platforms edge!
SB - We haven't even began to discuss the foundation for godless morality. You refuse to talk about it despite your constant requests to talk about it.
Morals are simply the name we give to the way we choose to act towards other conscious creatures.
Morals can be judged on the basis of the effect our words and actions have on others. Do they promote the flourishing of others or not?
Often the answer is obvious such as in the OP; other times it is complex and involves conflicting interests.
Pretending there is some divine law-giver who decides adds nothing useful. Especially when it turns out that this ultimate source of morality prescribes actions that we all find repulsive.
You have so far made no effort to respond to these simple introductory points. Do you want a conversation or not?
no subtlety here, it's going to be obvious where i'm going with this.
please consider the following scenario.. you're seated on a railway platform bench waiting for your train.
a high speed intercity is about to hurtle through without stopping when you see a small child running to the platforms edge!
Sea Breeze - Is it always wrong to murder children en masse?
Is kidnap and rape always wrong?
Is it always wrong to own another human being as chattel?
We can say yes because there are no circumstances where doing such things promotes the flourishing of conscious creatures and morality is ultimately nothing more than the choices we make in our interactions with others.
You have a problem if you say yes don't you?
no subtlety here, it's going to be obvious where i'm going with this.
please consider the following scenario.. you're seated on a railway platform bench waiting for your train.
a high speed intercity is about to hurtle through without stopping when you see a small child running to the platforms edge!
Telling people what they 'know' when they clearly believe no such thing is an especially obnoxious trait of presuppossionalists.
no subtlety here, it's going to be obvious where i'm going with this.
please consider the following scenario.. you're seated on a railway platform bench waiting for your train.
a high speed intercity is about to hurtle through without stopping when you see a small child running to the platforms edge!
SB - You have been asking repeatedly about where morality comes from without god, you answer it and you ignore it and post a link.
You are not somebody to be taken seriously.
no subtlety here, it's going to be obvious where i'm going with this.
please consider the following scenario.. you're seated on a railway platform bench waiting for your train.
a high speed intercity is about to hurtle through without stopping when you see a small child running to the platforms edge!
This is the primary purpose of man - to love God; it is why we are here. It is why there is anything at all. The second purpose is to love our neighbor as ourself
Which apparently can include slavery and infanticide. Awkward!
Morality is not about convention. It is objective because it is founded on actions that promote the flourishing of others. 'Godly' morality is arbitrary. It is based on divine whims and can include actions that are morally repugnant to all reasonable humans.
no subtlety here, it's going to be obvious where i'm going with this.
please consider the following scenario.. you're seated on a railway platform bench waiting for your train.
a high speed intercity is about to hurtle through without stopping when you see a small child running to the platforms edge!
No ... and?
Is your defence of god something like, 'humans do bad stuff too'
no subtlety here, it's going to be obvious where i'm going with this.
please consider the following scenario.. you're seated on a railway platform bench waiting for your train.
a high speed intercity is about to hurtle through without stopping when you see a small child running to the platforms edge!
Were you defending slavery when you were a Christian?
No I was telling lies about the fact that god prescribes slavery by obfuscating about indentured servitude.
Slavery has been defended on this forum by xtians many times. So has infanticide. Theism turns some people into moral retards.