Thyunda said:
Kaulen Fuhs said:
Thyunda said:
Kaulen Fuhs said:
Thyunda said:
Kaulen Fuhs said:
Thyunda said:
Kaulen Fuhs said:
Thyunda said:
Kaulen Fuhs said:
Thyunda said:
The morality point - also well worded and rational, but one I disagree with. Morality IS subjective, but on the point of pointless corpse desecration, there is something objectively wrong with this.
I wonder if you can prove this.
If not, I'll have to assume you made it up.
If I can prove there is something objectively wrong with corpse desecration? Alright. You prove that it's objectively right not to shoot people in the kneecaps and I'll prove it's objectively wrong to desecrate their corpse afterwards.
I don't have to prove anything. I'm not the one making unsupported claims.
What makes you think I consider it right or wrong to shoot people in the kneecaps?
Because there is no objective neutral. You're arguing a point for the sake of arguing, and you won't achieve anything like that. Stop being difficult, just accept the meaning behind what I said. I may have been hyperbolic in saying 'objectively wrong', but that's irrelevant. Why not take up knitting?
Hyperbolic? You set up morality as subjective, then specifically used the word "objective" to describe something you saw as wrong.
Stop being difficult? Stop being a sore loser, and accept that you made an error.
Contrary to what people seem to believe, there IS such a thing as objective morality. It's just finding what is right and what is wrong that is the hard part. That's why philosophy exists. That's why religion exists. All in the search of objective morality.
Naturally, you can't FIND objective morality, because every time you get somewhere or make a claim, you get some ignorant keyboard warrior leaping up to decry your claim because you haven't got any 'evidence'.
Religion got by without evidence for two thousand years, I don't see why I'm any different. We both discuss metaphysical points, therefore I only require metaphysical evidence, which I happen to possess, only you can't see it, because morality is 'subjective'.
Religion? Hilarious.
You know what, I give. You win.
If it means I don't have to discuss this nonsense, I'll surrender.
I'm sorry, have you another attempt at condescension to put on the table? Go right ahead, let's see what you have. I would be offended if you didn't.
Condescension towards you? No. Condescension towards religion? Yes.
Religion "gets by" without evidence in the same way New-Age medicine does; that is to say, people of intellectual reflection and honesty don't take it seriously.
Why? Because religion doesn't try to find what is right and wrong. It simply states it, and we are expected to follow along.
You say we discuss metaphysical points, and therefore metaphysical evidence is all that is needed. I say there is no morality, that no one has the basis for determining what it is, if it exists, and that any discussion on what morality is is so much useless posturing, assertions made but not capable of being defended.
...But people of intellectual reflection and honesty can still believe in God without losing all of their points. I'm not religious myself...not at all...but I do not discount somebody's opinion based on one belief that I cannot objectively disprove. Just like we can't disprove that we're all the product of some demon's imagination.
However. That's pushing it a little far. So many philosophers have so many valid points on morality, and to say they're all wrong simply because you don't believe in morality is a little bit silly.
You're absolutely right, academics and intelligent people may find peace or comfort in religion, they may still be considered well-adjusted, brilliant individuals. But the religion is a stain on their intellect, the dark part that if reflected on enough, they would abandon.
Look, I'm not saying there is no God. No one knows that, least of all me. But all religions are obvious crocks of nonsense, and denying it is mentally unhealthy.
As for your point about philosophers; I'm a philosophy nut, so I've read Locke, Hobbes, Nietzsche, Voltaire. The next time you read some philosopher who sees fit to make a moral claim, ask yourself how they back that up. I can guarantee the Locke does not make a single substantiated remark in regards to morality. He, in effect, makes it all up.
These men spent their lives in efforts to find what morality was, but they had to start somewhere, and recognizing that starting point, say, doing unnecessary harm to others is wrong, as utterly made up, is the only way to see their arguments for what they are.
