• 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

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

    I think you misread my post. My comment suggests that there is an issue with Artie's definition. I addressed that definition directly and stated directly that HIS definition is what BEAST currently do so why should we do it. I also point out all human beings I know believe humans are superior...
  2. L

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

    Yes it is!!!! I suppose the AIDS virus is committing genocide? Nuclear weapons do not COMMIT genocide. Nuclear weapons can be a tool in performing GENOCIDE or am I wrong about that? So you mean to tell me if pit bulls were to execute an entire racial group in a specific state lets say they...
  3. L

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

    Nonsense! Genicide is specifically defined when HUMAN BEINGs kill other HUMAN BEINGS. GOD is not a human being. I am a logical being so there are NO EXCEPTIONS. If you have exceptions then this a red flag to rational folk. Make rules correctly and there will be no exceptions ever. It is a...
  4. L

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

    Please reread my post . I explain the WHY to offer my opponent to find a flaw with the facts I listed. I suggest that these facts and not emotion should stand or justify why said actions are WRONG. I did not inject emotion or feelings but JUST THE FACTS ma am.
  5. L

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

    I am baptist. The problem with your quote is that this was not ORDERED unnecessarily by GOD. This order given by GOD had a REASON which is UNLIKE why HITLER tortured and murdered Jews. JUst because human beings are the victim that does not always imply murder or automatically imply something...
  6. L

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

    Well I can give this test a go around. Let us start with the OBJECTIVE FACT that every proposition can be denied. So I hope you are not going to perform that route JUST BECAUSE you can and it is legal. I am expecting you to be better than that. So here we go. Lets us take a look a Hitler...
  7. L

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

    You REALLY nedd to address why you advocate human beings to act as BEASTS of the field. What you describe is what is already performed by lions, tigers, bears, birds, bacteria, etc
  8. L

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

    This is HOW BEAST BEHAVE!!!!! Here you are praising how beasts behave ??? I have never met any human being that for one second believes human beings are BELOW BEASTS. I don't think you belleive that beast are ABOVE YOU or BEAST ARE EQUAL to you for one second. You are probably arrogant about...
  9. L

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

    Human interpretation has nothing to do with any objective rules. Objective rules are to be completely FREE of emotion. Because many people don't practice this is not an excuse to deny objective claims. You are confusing theory with practical application when you think like that.
  10. L

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

    So here we have the argument that there is no evidence that there is any sort of objective moral standard. If there is no evidence of an objective moral standard then objective morality cannot exist. Sir would you say that resents your thought process? How would you put the argument in proper...
  11. L

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

    Nothing is JUDGED objective. This is a concept that exists without thoughts of people. We're there Dinosaurs without the existence of people? Scientific Evidence suggest this is the case. So objectively there were no human being when dinosaurs roamed the earth. The claim dinosaurs once...
  12. L

    Proof of free-will (Pandora's Contraption - Part 1)

    This is the kettle calling the pot black. You have done the same thing! You can't use the logic terminology. All you have done is LOOK WHAT I CAN DO! SEE! How about explaining the process pal? It so easy all people should just understand it is that what you are thinking? How do you reach...
  13. L

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

    That is what the WORLD THINKS that everything is subjective and people determine objectivity. No training in philosophy is required to think like this. Objective facts are true regardless AND IT IS STILL OBJECTIVE aid there never were humans. People have nothing to do with objective facts...
  14. L

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

    This is nonsense. Objective facts have absolutely nothing to do with human beings at all. If there were no human beings things can still be objective. Your context of the SAME WORD has more to do with GRAMMAR and you refuse to recognize that fact. This is why you think the way you do. You...
  15. L

    Proof of free-will (Pandora's Contraption - Part 1)

    I get the whole validity thing which is the FOCUS of MATHEMATICAL LOGIC. The distinction I was making is that as I was taught I was not allowed to bring forth the argument unless the premises were true. This is NOT emphasized in MATHEMATICAL LOGIC. I know the difference between valid and...
  16. L

    Proof of free-will (Pandora's Contraption - Part 1)

    The second sentence makes utterly nosense. You associate a logical claim with incorrect claims? Tell those people here without logic 101 how can something be LOGICAL and BE INCORRECT at the same time? Isn't the purpose of logic to CORRECT mistakes in reasoning? Well look a here we see a...
  17. L

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

    You have to be joking. I specifically stated to you the WORD OBJECTIVE has multiple contexts. So what does this person do? Go to the dictionary??? I used the word OBJECTIVE as used in philosophy. Why do you people take the time to MAKE STUFF UP and pay attention when you feel like it. Can...
  18. L

    Proof of free-will (Pandora's Contraption - Part 1)

    How can you CONCLUDE THAT when you refuse to use the terminology? All you and your math buddies have doe is demonstrate you can SOMETIMES apply your reasoning skills. Notice the word SOMETIMES. How about addressing the concepts not the demonstrations? I gave concepts such as contraposition...
  19. L

    Proof of free-will (Pandora's Contraption - Part 1)

    All you can speak on is VALIDITY when you study MATHEMATICAL LOGIC. Why not speak on what is wrong with the claims themselves in the first place? You cannot do so because you were not TRAINED to do so. You probably were not taught the rules of classical logic and don't know too many of them...
  20. L

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

    Because there are different viewpoints on morality does not mean that morality cannot be objective. This is a classical fallacy from a Philosophy student? You claim to study philosophy right? Put this in logical form and think about it. If you like we can go over why it is a fallacy but put...
Top