Sentences with phrase «not objective morality»

This is not objective morality though.

The question wasn't about historical facts, it was about whether or not objective morality actually exists.

This is certainly not objective morality.

Not exact matches

Since you base your morality on gods scale, you are blinded and not objective when actually judging gods actions.

You can't really believe that atheists, agnostics, deists and other religions can not determine right from wrong because they do not believe in an objective morality, don't be so obtuse.

«God did HEARTLESS and HORRENDOUS things... Don't try to PRETEND those are examples of GOOD «objective morality».

Since truthfollower thinks that it is o.k. for god to commit genocide, and not Hitler morality can't be objective.

Since you don't subscribe to objective morality but only to subjective, given the scenario, would it be subjectively (the only morality you apparently subscribe to) good to you to murder the Jewish people?

There goes Theo, just like truthfollower, making claims they can't support regarding objective morality:

Atheist morality is without any objective basis and, if followed with integrity, doesn't allow them to act against others who act contrary to their moral system (as they insist that each subjective moral judgment is equal in value, all being based purely on individual feelings).

Since objective morality wouldn't come from the Bible, where does it come from?

Objective morality does not exist... --------------- If that's true, then no one has any grounds to call Hitler a bad person, or that he even did anything bad or wrong at all.

Objective morality does not exist, despite the protestations of numerous, disparate religions.

But again, if there is no objective standard of morality, then Catholic priests who molest children are not doing anything bad, because it was right in their own eyes.

So in certain cases, like statutory ra / pe, it isn't a question of objective morality but of cultural norms?

Also, i don't remember if you and I have discussed morality in the past, but do you believe morality is objective or subjective?

There are ways to be able to reason morality as objective (not in the usual religious sense however) without attributing it to a higher moral authority (god).

I am very sure that morality is objective, human independent, something we uncover like archeologists not something we build like architects.»

This is relative / subjective morality, not objective / absolute morality.

You would say my opinion doesn't matter; opinions don't count in objective morality.

Since the senseless ra - pe of an innocent bystander is objectively morally wrong and objective morality is grounded in the nature of God, then God can not command this for it is acting contrary to His nature and His nature doesn't change.

However, what I believe you are really hoping for is that I not only acknowledge objective morality but attribute it to god, and this is very unlikely.

My present inclination is not to subscribe to objective morality.

Not that the biblical god provides an objective system, or that it is the best objective system, but that somehow objective morality in an of itself is evidence for god's existence.»

But it can hardly be doubted that such a state of actually invincible error in moral questions exists also in society or in social groups in which the individual participates, so that his power of moral discernment does not go beyond a certain point, which, through no fault of his own, falls below objective morality.

I will conclude by saying that on the atheistic there is no objective morality anyways so I don't believe that the atheist has any grounds for accusing God or anyone else for that matter if doing anything evil or wrong.

So no, objective morality itself is not evidence for god.

AG, I asked because all too many believers are constantly making the claim that we could not be moral without God, and he is necessary for morality to be objective, and that without God everyone would go around raping and murdering, and that people would not do anything good.

You don't believe in objective morality or when god ordered genocide it would also be immoral.

By using genocide as as example of objective morality and not viewing god as immoral when he orders genocide in the Bible you only proving that morality is subjective.

Nowadays, morality is addressed in terms of «empathy» or doing «what you FEEL is right»... but morality is OBjective, not SUBjective, and God is the One to let us know what that morality is... not what you «think»...

While it may not be universal, I suspect it is statistically supportable that the objection most atheists have to the existence of God is the idea of objective morality.

Do you or do you not believe that there is an objective morality?

You claimed that the reason people object to atheism is because they don't buy objective morality.

Yes we are, because you feel for it to be worth anything at all you must have an «objective» standard, which even you don't have if you believe that your morality comes from a god.

that's not objective, but subjective morality.

why feel the need to argue for an objective morality if you don't believe in the objective in the first place?

Incidentally, even if god exists then his does not represent objective morality either.

I don't believe in objective morality.

once you concede that racism or any other major immorality could be deemed acceptable in the future, you are not talking about an objective basis for morality — because it changes.

those appealing to Objective morality have the problem of having a standard imposed on them, but those without such a basis can not appeal to such a standard / justice & thereby have no compassion.

None the less, if one responds as a whole person, one can have confidence in one's response as one can not have confidence in any objective knowledge or universal prescriptions of morality.

Actually if one is claiming that there can not be objective morality without god it is relevant.

To take up your point on morality, I can not fathom how there is such a thing as «objective morality».

colin: «To take up your point on morality, I can not fathom how there is such a thing as «objective morality».

Your idea of objective morality would make such decisions black or white when they are not.

I thought you said morality was objective and slavery was wrong... Isn't this a contradiction of your previous position?

To equate morality solely with well - being does not make it objective; it simply assumes this is the case.

If not, then objective morality exists, if yes, then objective morality still exists.

William Provine, for example, has been on a crusade to persuade the public that it has to discard either Darwinism or God, and not only God but also such non-materialistic concepts as free will and objective standards of morality.