Objective Morality and Atheism.

Precisely.

...Ok, let me do it for you then, since you think you've made some sort of point, when I'm still completely confused as to what it is.

Murder - The taking of a life of another person without their consent.
Consent of course, doesn't have to be, "Please kill me." it could also be deciding to attempt to end someone else's life without THEIR consent, which in turn gives them consent to take YOURS.

In THAT context, yes. Murder is objectively wrong, under my definition of what is a morally good, and what is a morally bad action.

So it is objectively moral to murder someone because they are murdering someone else, because attempting a murder is consent enough to murder them?

EDIT: My point was that you had to define the character of murder itself, so how can something be objectively true if there are various definitions of it?

If it IS consent enough to end their life, on what grounds is it considered to be so?

So you trust proper channels and recognition from universities, and not the actual experts themselves?



Then don't become a stranger to me. Whoopdy-fucking-doo. You're not a stranger to me anymore just by talking to me. I would not help random strangers, but that doesn't mean I won't talk to random strangers. If a fully grown adult is able to walk alone by themselves on the street, I assume they have fully functional lives with their own set of people who already care about them. Why do babies walk with their parents? I won't help a baby if it starts asking for charity, because it should already have it's own parents, or people that care about it. If it turns out that it's parents have abandoned it, then yes, yes I will help, because the baby has shown that he is capable of telling me that it's parents have abandoned it, and I will then care about the baby.

It's consent enough because of the default position of rights. Everyone has the right to do whatever they want until we can explain why some rights are limited. the right to murder another person is limited because it infringes on the rights of all people to live. Infringing on that right then extends the right for other people to infringe on yours.

It's objectively true, because it's measureable despite anyone's opinion on the matter. The fact is, the act of taking someone's life without consent being given is a thing. If you decide you don't want to call that murder, fine, I'll just call it Shplurder, and now Shplurder is the thing that's wrong.

0.0 I think I understand you. You are not presenting it as a universal truth, rather as an independent truth according to the set of an intrinsic value, as plato would describe it.

See, this whole time I've been viewing it from the metaphysical value of it, so you could see my disagreement with the statement. Am I in the area of it?

Ignore BigLundi, he talks out of his ass. Think taking a couple classes in college grants him authority on a particular subject.

Claims something is objective if it meets his definition which everyone knows means his system is subjective.

The boy needs to pick up a dictionary and learn the definition of objective and subjective.

Ahh, so someone finally understands what I'm saying and youre going, "No, he doesn't make sense."

Your post itself actually demonstrates that mno, you have no idea what I mean when I say objective morality. So good job.

Also, a couple college classes doesn't gvive me authority, but it certainly gives me some knowledge on the subject, and the ability to make philosophical quandries. In fact, well, there's no college education required at ALL to contemplate philosophical matters and make arguments about them.

no college education is required to talk out of your ass.

This link and this link might be useful for you to further build a coherent argument so the overcompensation won't be so obvious.

Odd, neither one of those seem to against my point. so I fail to see yours. Are you saying I don't have the right to comment on philosophical matters unless I have a degree? Are you saying I don't get to make arguments without citing sources from other philosophers?

Lundi my nigga, how are you doing?

It's all goood in the hood slick. What's up, more Objectivism? :P

Oh! As a side bit, I gotta ask you Neo, do you consider a person who answers the question, "Do you believe god exists?" with the answer "I'm not sure" an agnostic atheist?

You realize I've replied to you, right? And I consider them just agnostic, AKA unable to take a side.

No actually I figured I resonded to your last post. I...can't seem to find you latest response.

That's not what agnosticism means, you're aware of that, right?

Go look up 11 posts. You should find it there. Agnostics and atheists are two different things, last I recall. Agnostics say, "You can't know for sure." Atheists say, "God doesn't exist".

In other words, you don't believe it's possible for an person to be an "agnostic atheist"


to put it in short terms. Agnosticism and gnosticism deal with your level of knowledge on a subject. Atheism and theism deal with whether or not you have a positive belief in gods/

Two seperate scales, two seperate questions. I'm kind of tired tonight, I've been arguing three different topics as well as dealing with some real life drama, I'll address your latest response to me tomorrow.

You talk like novice who thinks he's an expert.



No, I'm saying you're talking out of your ass like a novice who thinks he's an expert. You're posts about logic, morality and whatnot sound like someone who is trying to talk intellectually about a subject they themselves don't grasp 100%.

In other words, shut up, go do some more reading and come back when you're better prepared.