true in this case means accurate with respect to the reality we all share. For example there are people who believe God exists and people who believe he doesn't exist. Either its true that God exists or false.
You're not using true in the traditional sense of the word, which means accurate and corresponding with reality. Two people's contradictory religious beliefs cannot both be true. One persons religious belief that God intervenes in the world and one persons religious belief that God is uninvolved...
Hence I said approximately true. I didn't say perfectly true.
Huh? Its just a probability. What do you mean we have to have something to compare against? I mean you could compare against other religions, or no religion being true, or many other things. For example, what would you compare the...
Does anyone care to take a guess? Is it impossible to assign such a probability?
My answer would be "I don't know" because it seems extremely difficult to have enough reliable information to make such a claim about the probability.
If you say 100% or 0% there must be significant evidence or...
False dilemma--it doesn't have to be either. It isn't an either or kind of thing. It could be muhammad on a winged unicorn, born out of a pastafarian intelligence.
Why can;t a society allow it? What if it turned out that it benefited the society since most people were non violent but a few were willing to take out huge criminals and other scum? You said earlier that its moral as long as it benefits the society.
Your constant use of strawmen is making you look like a fool. I never said they were untrustworthy, I said they were as trustworthy as you were. I simply have no reason to believe one over the other. That doesn't mean they're inherently untrustworthy though. I don't know if they're trustworthy...
Do you understand what a hypothetical is? A hypothetical doesn't have to be realistic to be a valid hypothetical. In this case its meant to explore certain moral actions based on certain conditions. Why would you ever need a hypothetical if it was a real world situation? Your explanation for...
That sounds very debatable. Why is something objectively moral or immoral just because its in your nature? You haven''t established that things are inherently moral or immoral just because you're predisposed to certain instincts. Instincts aren't moral or immoral.
Its not objectively true. Like I said, its consistent with my moral framework, which of course is based on an opinion.
You're once again assuming that moral propositions can be either true or false. Its still begging the question. Saying its evil is consistent with my moral framework...
That doesn't address what I said:
"Only someone who had infinite knowledge and was perfectly good could dictate what is right and wrong. This is the only way something could be inherently wrong. You simply don't have the moral authority to dictate what is right and wrong as a fundamental...
Why are you assuming everybody in a society would steal if only a few people stole because their families were dying? Also why is it wrong to do something that's detrimental to society? What if the society is immoral?
But anyways Per what definition? The definition says nothing about morality...
They just imply that there's a low probability that you got it right. It doesn't mean that only one is right. Its very possible that none could be right and all religions got it wrong. Or there might be some religion in the future thats the actual, true religion. You simply don't know enough to...
Well you haven't demonstrated any of that and you're about as trustworthy as a Muslim or Sikh or a Protestant or a Calvinist or a Buddhist or whatever. My opinion matters as much as yours does until you can demonstrate that you have a personal hotline to God. You can dictate all you wan't but...
Again nobody is saying that rape is sometimes right. People are just looking at the LESSER OF TWO EVILS.
Fortunately the world is sensible enough to follow the obvious logic that it is better to allow one immoral thing to occur than to let humanity go extinct. Its a numbers game. The world...
Many of those things were not considered immoral in humanity's ancient past. This is just moral relativism. I thought my analogy with science would make things clear. A good approximation of morality isn't the same thing as objective morality for the same reason that a scientific theory isn't...
I don't believe that a moral proposition is "true." I believe that the morals i follow are consistent with my feelings regarding empathy and what society has instilled within me. What you're doing is begging the question here, which is a fallacy. You're stating the conclusion of your argument as...
Because were imperfect, have limited knowledge, and often disagree on morality based on the same set of assumptions. Its not objective then, its just opinions. There is no logical proof of any objective morality. It isn't inherent or objective. You can deduce all you want, but the problems are...