MAGA World Claims Shooter was Trans

[LeftyLen]

No, I do believe that objective reality is fair, real, orderly and knowable. But I can't prove it and have no evidence for it.

Looking at the macro, it becomes obvious, as once individuals or societies become the source of right and wrong, right and wrong, good and evil, are merely adjectives describing one’s preferences. This is known as moral relativism, and it is the dominant attitude toward morality in modern secular society. Moral relativism means that murder, for example, is not objectively wrong; you may feel it’s wrong, but it is no more objectively wrong than your feeling that some music is awful renders that music objectively awful. It’s all a matter of personal feeling. That is why in secular society people are far more prone to regard moral judgments as merely feelings. Children are increasingly raised to ask the question, “How do you feel about it?” rather than, “Is it right or wrong?”


Only if God, the transcendent source of morality, says murder is wrong, is it wrong, and not merely one man’s or one society’s opinion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Looking at the macro, it becomes obvious, as once individuals or societies become the source of right and wrong, right and wrong, good and evil, are merely adjectives describing one’s preferences. This is known as moral relativism, and it is the dominant attitude toward morality in modern secular society. Moral relativism means that murder, for example, is not objectively wrong; you may feel it’s wrong, but it is no more objectively wrong than your feeling that some music is awful renders that music objectively awful. It’s all a matter of personal feeling. That is why in secular society people are far more prone to regard moral judgments as merely feelings. Children are increasingly raised to ask the question, “How do you feel about it?” rather than, “Is it right or wrong?”


Only if God, the transcendent source of morality, says murder is wrong, is it wrong, and not merely one man’s or one society’s opinion.

Yeah, now with actual objective evidence which god(s) is/are that?

I mean I demand according to your standard that you provide objective evidence and not how you subjectively think/feel. But you can't do that, because you can't point to an actual god out there in objective reality. You can only state how the concept subjectively makes sense to you.

 

[LeftyLen]

Yeah, now with actual objective evidence which god(s) is/are that?

I mean I demand according to your standard that you provide objective evidence and not how you subjectively think/feel. But you can't do that, because you can't point to an actual god out there in objective reality. You can only state how the concept subjectively makes sense to you.

So now we come to the meat of the question. There is inference and ontological questions that renders atheism more faith based than

Yeah, now with actual objective evidence which god(s) is/are that?

I mean I demand according to your standard that you provide objective evidence and not how you subjectively think/feel. But you can't do that, because you can't point to an actual god out there in objective reality. You can only state how the concept subjectively makes sense to you.

S

 

[LeftyLen]

So now we come to the meat of the question. There is inference and ontological questions that renders atheism more faith based than

Yeah, now with actual objective evidence which god(s) is/are that?

I mean I demand according to your standard that you provide objective evidence and not how you subjectively think/feel. But you can't do that, because you can't point to an actual god out there in objective reality. You can only state how the concept subjectively makes sense to you.

As to being 'faith based' science has no answer for abiogenesis. simply put can microbial life come from inert matter? Is it more likely that inert matter became microbial or that there was an outside agent? Which of these narratives takes more FAITH? Then the ontological questions of something from nothing.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So now we come to the meat of the question. There is inference and ontological questions that renders atheism more faith based than

S

Let us say I have a different faith than you. Then it ends there, unless you can show that you don't faith in effect, because you have truth/proof/evidence or what ever you call it.
Look up cognitive relativism.
And yes, I do think a part of reality is objective and not everything is subjective. Yet I have found no single version of knowledge as a method that is objectively better than any one else.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

@LeftyLen

Your words: "As to being 'faith based' science has no answer for abiogenesis. simply put can microbial life come from inert matter? Is it more likely that inert matter became microbial or that there was an outside agent? Which of these narratives takes more FAITH? Then the ontological questions of something from nothing."

I don't care about that in the end. And since I am not a philosophical naturalist or hold any postive claim about metaphysics or ontology, it is not relevant to me.

I don't know what the universe is in itself and I don't care, since I know of no way of knowing that.