reply to post by AfterInfinity
I respectfully disagree. It seems your appealing to metaphysical idealism. I agree to a great deal of certainty, that we can never paint a complete
picture based on limitation of the nature of information and how it is percieved. However consider this. Slavery at one time, even in the eyes of god,
was morally acceptable. Men used subjective justifications to in concert to justify slavery. However, i will assert that the exploitation of human
nature to this end is objectively immoral.
Because life is preferable to death, by human nature, and it has been exploited, for subjectivly justifiable reasons, but cannot be objectively
justified. I understand im using subjective and objective in its simplist form, and is a debate upon itself, that good things can come from
subjectivity, but it must be measured to the stick of objectivity, or else we once again create the dillemma of being able to justify any action
subjectivly. It would do the world alot of good to hold themselves responsible for there own fallibility, and pursue a truth that has as little
subjectivity as humanly possible and strive for objectivity.
Its the same argument as political correctness. Nobody can be right, which also means nobody can be wrong. To appeal to objectivity is to euchre this
immoral assertion that there is no right or wrong. The objective truth may latter be found with new evidence to be subjective in nature, but i appeal
to veracity of science to weigh this. To change positions based on new evidence is in no way subjective and purely objective. Once again creating the
moral dillemma and further confusing everybody as to whats true. For example homosexuality is immoral, in no way can subjectivity overcome this
obstacle. Whatever your position is, its irrelevent. It must be objectively justified, as the nature of moral and ethics must be.
Clearly nobody can tell you how to live your life, which is subjective. Objectivity offers suggestions based on veracity. Im sorry, but no higher
authority can trump this logic, as is the nature of information. That higher authority cannot present this argument objectively, and can only do so
subjectively. The evidence presents itself, as so many people are snookered by the presentation of information, and the inherent nature of it. In no
capacity can the argument of fallibility within objectivity trump it, as very clearly occam has proposed the position that offers the simplest theory
until one with greater explainatory power is presented. Objectivity inherently has more explainatory power, in which subjectivity should never be
chosen over the objective. To do so results in justifications in appeals to emotion and are inherently illogical until a better solution presents
Based upon the nature of god, supernatural in existance, believers should not be presented with logical arguments to either prove or disprove the
existance. The logical arguments must be applied to the believers themselves, as they are human, and inherently natural. Occams razor could be applied
to justify non belief, in that presented with multiple theories (religions), to determine one based on veracity is not possible. Non offer better
explaination than the other, and to take a simpler position of non belief, is the logical conclusion. If they simply wish to believe based on appeals
to emotion, we cannot objectivly justify expecting them to further logically justify said position. This is not to say that it isnt done, lots of
apologetics will create logical arguments to present the existance of god, however the premise of the argument is loaded.
Assertion of existance is implied, and using occams razor once again, they slide the burden of proof back to the atheist, comming full circle over
and over and over. Its simply exhanging a burden of evidence that is not objectively available, and subjective. Once again the athiest is snookered
back into a subjective arguement that nobody can win, because if its subjective you assert nobody can tell you your wrong, due to the lack of
objectivity. As an atheist myself, i fully support in all my capacity that you the believer has every right to believe your sect. I will also assert
that its immoral to tell sombody subjectively they are wrong. As we cannot determine objectively wether or not a god exists, the argument is over.
This arguement is entirely out of frustration to the lack of objectivity in other matters, trying to provide a kick to the teeth of the thiests.
Simply put, thiest claims earth is 6000 years old, asserts that evolution is debunked, and the universe cannot come from nothing. In every regard
these positions are subjective and hold no veracity. However because of the subjective nature everyone is left bashing there heads through the walls
at lack of objectivity. Retaliation? Definatly. Illogical? Definatly.