Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
P.S. I haven't been sleeping much so if I am sounding short lately it is not intended!
An Objective moral Truth is still objective and a truth and therefore I have met the request of the thread.
No one, no one, has been willing to show me where and how my statement was false. I believe that is because it is objectively a truth. If it were false, it would have already been easily shown to be false.
Right, it is still an objective truth, but is it one that can exist is the question. I don't believe that objective moral truths can exist. We assume that people look at morality in the way you describe. We have already experimentally confirmed this view does not exist and found that humans favored objectivism in multiple studies. You can download and read the research confirming the relationship between moral relativism and personality traits here:
The opposite of objective is subjective, not moral. An objective truth is factual; it has a definite correspondence to reality. There is no reason why it can't also be a moral truth. As long as it can be proven to be factually accurate, it is an objective truth. And while I noted that there may be exceptions to my statement, I believe they are very few and far between.
Right, I think that is where i was going next. Wouldn't this just be a subjective truth?
It is perhaps a personal take, but I have an idea that giving people hard truths rather than comfortable lies is one of the most charitable gifts one can give them. Though they may not really appreciate it until much, much later - if at all.
Not sure how your response actually ties to what I did. If it does, you'll have to explain to me how it is.
I'd agree that giving people hard truths rather than comfortable lies is a good thing, but when it comes to religious beliefs, "hard truths" are hard to come by. I could talk all day about why I believe my religion is true, but no matter how strongly I may believe what I do (and it could even turn out in the end that I was right), I'd still just be speaking subjectively. Can you give me an example of a "hard truth" that I will likely come to appreciate in the future, even if I don't right now?
Right, I think that is where i was going next. Wouldn't this just be a subjective truth?
I don't think so. Ask 1000 people if they appreciate kindness being extended to them. See how many say, "no." If they all do, then it's an objective truth. It's something that can be substantiated in the real world, something that appears to be the case time after time after time.
Every time I see this thread, it makes me stop and think. So, I guess I've been thinking about it for a while now, even though I haven't actually been following the thread. Maybe someone has already mentioned this; if so, I apologize for being repetitive. At any rate, I think I have an answer to share.
1 Corinthians 13:8 says, "Charity never faileth."
Now, by "charity," I don't mean hauling a bunch of your unwanted clothing down to Goodwill as a donation. I don't mean giving money to charitable causes, however good they may do. I am also not using the word "charity" as a synonym for "pity." I suppose there are some people who are looking for pity, but I don't think most of us are. I'm using the word "charity" as it was used in the original sense -- unconditional, selfless love and compassion.
Okay, so maybe it's not an absolute truth because there may be exceptions, but I think it's as close to it as anybody's going to be able to find in any religious teaching. I don't know of a single soul who doesn't appreciate being shown unconditional love and compassion. I think it's a part of human nature to want to be the recipient of such things. So there's by objective truth: Charity never faileth.
Sure seems to me we've all got to better understand what is actually an objective truth far as the OP is concerned, because these sorts of "truths" are not what I'm thinking is being asked for...
1) This is not necessarily a religious idea or an idea specific to any particular religion. It's more of a generality that resonates with most people regardless whether they are religious or atheist like me.
2) More specifically to the truth of what you describe, whether it be considered objective or subjective, you remind me of another topic and/or problem I've been thinking about for a long time too. Homelessness. Is it always true that "charity never faileth?" I suppose that also depends on how you measure success or failure. We're seeing evidence here that the more tolerant and compassionate we here have been toward the homeless, the more homeless that come here.
Put another way I'm reminded of the old addage that "no good deed goes unpunished."
All quite worthy of consideration either way however. Don't get me wrong. Thanks for your efforts along these lines, but I wouldn't call this the sort of objective truth many of us have in mind when it comes to "what is written" in the scriptures of most religions, having more to do with the basis or justification for those religions. Their place as more fiction or non-fiction. Truth (objective or subjective) or something else altogether?
Perhaps suffice to say that even if "truths" like the one you propose are considered objectively true. Most of the rest from most of the religions is hardly anything of the kind. This imbalance is what ultimately weighs more on my mind than the "we are all gods children" kinds of "truths."
yeah ... you literally came from the material on this planet. Thats a fact.
I only used "dust of the earth" because it really exposes intentions and goals. Its a simple one to to say "Yeah, ok thats one." and move on.
The question is why do you have to fight that so hard?
Enough...
Very tempted to simply scan and skip this comment of yours too, like I'm doing with so many comments in these threads, but I really have to wonder if you can be serious. I am not fighting, let alone hard, the notion that we come from star dust (if you want to put it that way). I was simply asking where in the bible does it say we come from star dust.
If it's your dyslexia that is causing this unnecessary confusion, okay. There's my effort to help, but if this is yet another effort to just keep beating your favorite dead horse, I'm really going to have to pass altogether going forward as I've had more than enough of that already. Thanks for your efforts to understand me either way.
Right, it is still an objective truth, but is it one that can exist is the question. I don't believe that objective moral truths can exist. We assume that people look at morality in the way you describe. We have already experimentally confirmed this view does not exist and found that humans favored objectivism in multiple studies. You can download and read the research confirming the relationship between moral relativism and personality traits here:
I don't think so. Ask 1000 people if they appreciate kindness being extended to them. See how many say, "no." If they all do, then it's an objective truth. It's something that can be substantiated in the real world, something that appears to be the case time after time after time.
Depends on what the random act of kindness is. For example, I offered a homeless man food and he shunned me, gave me a dirty look and said he only wanted money.
Even the research says the responses differ based on whether the kindness is seen as normative.
If you have any research that says what you claim is 100% always true no matter what then I can see this as an objective truth, but I think your example is merely just a subjective truth.
Morality is a subjective matter. Plain and simple.
IF your atheism is true and there is no purpose to human existence, what you say would be true. But if there IS a purpose to human existence (whether or not we know what it is) then what you say would be false. Objective morality under the latter condition would be anything that promotes and advances the purpose of human existence. Objective immorality would be anything that retards, prevents, or otherwise impedes the achievement of the purpose of human existence.
Sure seems to me we've all got to better understand what is actually an objective truth far as the OP is concerned, because these sorts of "truths" are not what I'm thinking is being asked for...
Well, if the OP is asking if there are any "scientifically verifiable" truths in any religions at all, I'd say this thread is pretty much just trolling. No religious truth is scientifically verifiable, which is why I didn't choose to participate in this thread at all for quite some time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
