It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
You still don't understand the actual difference between subjective & objective.
Maliciousness & unneccesary contemptible actions are always bad. Just because someone might think it's "good" to torture, rape, pillage, & murder doesn't mean it is good. Only subjectively good.
"But why take the lives of innocent children? The terrible totality of the destruction was undoubtedly related to the prohibition of assimilation to pagan nations on Israel's part. In commanding complete destruction of the Canaanites, the Lord says, 'You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons, or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods' (Deut 7.3-4). \
God knew that if these Canaanite children were allowed to live, they would spell the undoing of Israel. […] Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God's grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven's incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives."
Christian Apologist William Lane Craig
NO I DON'T! Everything, including right and wrong is subjective. There is no objective moral standard! Everything is relative, including the existence of the universe.
No. You misunderstand. Why is destroying the universe bad? Serious question. Things are only bad to those who perceive them to be
Millions of religious individuals, including the OP, disagree with you. When God ordered it in the Old Testament, it was good and just.
So the man who killed you and your family preformed an ethically good action? Concede that and I will respect your intellectual consistency. I will respectfully disagree, but I will respect your consistency
Destroying the universe by conscious decision ends the lives of many people, and life has meaning. Humans have intrinsic value in my world view. Humans have a purpose.
Murder is evil.
Murder is not evil.
regardless of which proposition is true, logic dictates only one of them is a true statement.
"For any proposition either that proposition is true, or its negation is true."
That's ridiculous. Morality is not a mathematical equation. It's a subjective opinion of what is considered to be, by that individual or group, good or bad
"I'ts good for me that I got the promotion, but it's bad for Bob that I got the promotion."
It's not semantics. It's the crux of the debate. Murder is meaningless without a law in place to define it. Is the law just, or is it tyrannical?
I have presented you with a logical argument for the existence of an objective moral realm.
The law of noncontradiction says for an contradictory statements either the proposition is true or its negation is true.
Murder is evil.
Murder is not evil.
LOL! No you haven't. I don't find your argument logical at all. However, you still may be able to prove your logic by providing an example of objective morality, something that is always good or bad, which you have yet to do. You can't trick me into believing something that I don't believe.
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: TheArrow
Good point I suppose it was a careless definition to throw out there. The point is your still arguing semantics. How about murder is deliberate homicide without the intention of protecting human life and/or well being?
Why do i have to provide you with an example of what is good or bad when I just showed you the laws of logic dictate that there can only be one truth?
What is "good" to one person CAN be "bad" for another