• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Search results

  1. L

    “Philosophy is dead." - Stephen Hawking

    That would be like me stating "all scientists are Neanderthals. All they want is sense verification on everything or else they claim there is no knowledge. The problem is everything is not send verifiable so science is not enough!!!!"
  2. L

    Are Objective Standards for Morals Superior in Practice to Subjective Standards for Morals?

    How did you come to your conclusion? Did you just take a poll? Did you research the terms? Did you just make up what you wanted? Can you show me how you do this with other fields where you respect the actual fields? IF I were a betting man, I would wager all I had that you do not just make...
  3. L

    The Burden of Proof

    The proving a negative thing is a mathematician slogan. It makes no sense in the real world. Any proposition in philosophy can refer to real world existence. I take it the non philosophical people have never herd of a logical concept of supposition. This distinguishes how mathematics teaches...
  4. L

    The Burden of Proof

    A rational person requires you to explain how do you know this. How would you expect others to just believe whatever you say? Objective claims are true regardless of what people think. There are cases where the claim is true and you won't have the means to prove it. What then? You must...
  5. L

    Are Objective Standards for Morals Superior in Practice to Subjective Standards for Morals?

    Then your understanding is awful. There are distinct features when one refers to MORALITY. There is no such term so general. Are you referring to psychology and descriptive ethics (aka applied ethics)? Or are you in a philosophy forum using the PHILOSOPHICAL a definition of morality from...
  6. L

    Are Objective Standards for Morals Superior in Practice to Subjective Standards for Morals?

    I never claimed subjective meant arbitrary. The issue with something being subjective is that the truth value does not hold 100%. If I say to someone with AIDS that person x prayed to a head of lettuce and was cured of the HIV virus and you can be too, then the same process was done by...
  7. L

    The Burden of Proof

    This response is a cop out simply because you ARE NOT MAKING A CLAIM. You are doing the INDIRECT SUBLIMINAL claim. In this way you can never be held accountable. Nice!
  8. L

    Are Objective Standards for Morals Superior in Practice to Subjective Standards for Morals?

    The problem is if morals were subjective they would be useless to society. The whole point is to have universal rules for EVERYBODY. There is no authority involved in morality. It is not someone's belief or opinion. People who look to kiss up to some authority have this notion some one has...
  9. L

    Are Objective Standards for Morals Superior in Practice to Subjective Standards for Morals?

    You have not paid attention to what I stated then! I specifically stated the facts that I listed indicate the acts are morally wrong. It is not opinion that decides.
  10. L

    The Burden of Proof

    No, it is nonsense to ALWAYS require the guy that says the positive claim to prove everything. If you believe x does not exist YOU HAVE the burden because that is the claim you take as a TRUTH claim. WHOMEVER is making a TRUTH claim be it positive or negative has the burden of proof. If I say...
  11. L

    The Burden of Proof

    Well there is a HUGE distinction between rational folk from irrational folk. The irrational folk usually fall in the category of "too emotional". That is these folk let the emotions rule with very little filter. These folk are likely to give in to popular opinion around them, famous slogans...
  12. L

    Are Objective Standards for Morals Superior in Practice to Subjective Standards for Morals?

    I never asked what YOU THOUGHT. In my last post I stated that the FACTS I listed about the Nazi treat of the Jews would indicate that the ACTS performed to the Jews was morally wrong. Thinking and opinion have little to do with what I stated. You only have to think if the claims I stated as...
  13. L

    Are Objective Standards for Morals Superior in Practice to Subjective Standards for Morals?

    I 1000% disagree. Morality exist outside of GOD rationally. If morality depended upon GOD then morality would be Authoritative. That means only the beings in power would decide what is moral. This would be a problem. There are already humans that think GOD chose them to lead other humans...
  14. L

    Are Objective Standards for Morals Superior in Practice to Subjective Standards for Morals?

    No I haven't. All you can show me is that a bunch of humans died. What no source listed for animals or non humans being capable of genocide? Sources means NOT COMING FROM YOU doesnt it?
  15. L

    Are Objective Standards for Morals Superior in Practice to Subjective Standards for Morals?

    God has attributes that basically force his hand to do certain things. If you were to understand the concepts you would see why they are needed or required. For one thing God cannot break his word. God exterminated people yes. This does not make him evil. There were reasons why and that is...
  16. L

    Are Objective Standards for Morals Superior in Practice to Subjective Standards for Morals?

    Perhaps there is none. It is the killing of human beings. Why are people uptight about the killing of human beings as opposed to the killing of squirrels? If I wipe out all of the squirrels in NY what is it called? Again I see you will likely appeal to humans are superior to beasts. Well...
  17. L

    Are Objective Standards for Morals Superior in Practice to Subjective Standards for Morals?

    If GOD does or dogs or lions or space aliens kill a multitude of human beings the act IS NOT GENOCIDE. Yes I am saying only HUMAN BEINGS can commit GENOCIDE. It is just killing human beings other wise and that does not automatically mean the killing of human beings is immoral.
  18. L

    Are Objective Standards for Morals Superior in Practice to Subjective Standards for Morals?

    Are you serious? Do you really need a dictionary to define words only? You cannot define words from the contexts in which the words are given? By now you should understand the same word CAN HAVE multiple contexts. I have yet to see a context where genocide is not a crime and does not refer...
  19. L

    Are Objective Standards for Morals Superior in Practice to Subjective Standards for Morals?

    The concepts came from the context of the words in the Bible. I did not say because the BIBLE SAYS x is moral then . . . . . Morality is not defined by the Bible. Normative ethics work if there were no bible.
  20. L

    Are Objective Standards for Morals Superior in Practice to Subjective Standards for Morals?

    Well you cannot show me a post where I use scripture can you. I can think for myself without quoting an authority. I can focus on concepts themselves like I have been showing you. You can do so too but perhaps you don't desire to do that.
Top