Lots of bashing for the belief of God....

[Final-Fan]

pizzahut451 said:

Rath said:

pizzahut451 said:
As long as those morals given by XXXXXXXX are perfecttly correct too, I dont see a reason why you shouldnt listen to XXXXXX. That is, assuming XXXXXX ia giving correct, good and righteous morals. If XXXXXXXX is givng false and bad morals, than XXXXXX doesnt hold much credit or value in comprassion with God. LIKE I SAID BEFORE, IN THIS ARGUMENT, IT ALL COMES DOWN TO WEATHER YOU BELIEVE IN UNVERSAL OR SUBJECTIVE MORALS. I don't think you know the difference between the 2.

Lets say for the sake of argument that morals are objective. Different groups claim to have the correct set of morals. What is it that makes you certain that your morals are the correct and objective ones?

What you desicribed there doesnt differ from subjective morals.If the morals are objective there can be only 1 set of cerrect morals, and what makes me certain that my morals are correct is faith/the principles I beleive in. I dont see how ANY morals Christ gave to people can any reasonable and good person consider wrong. His morals are objectivly correct.

Sorry if I missed something, but I think it's actually you who don't understand the difference between objective and subjective morals.  I also think you failed to understand his question (see below "So:" for a hopefully clearer restatement). 

Therefore, it's no surprise that although you answered his question, in a very real sense you didn't answer it at all.  You said you are sure your morals are correct by faith alone (or at least faith was the only reason you gave), but this is a TOTALLY INSUFFICIENT justification as far as objective (not subjective) morals. 

If different groups agreed that there were objective morals, but disagreed about what those objective morals were, they should strive to prove that their morals were objectively true, i.e. true regardless of anyone's opinion.  Faith is completely irrelevant to proving that ANYTHING is objectively true, because your faith is no more proof than your opinion as far as the rest of humanity is concerned.  I trust you at least understand why opinion is not sufficient proof. 

It follows that, just as your opinion is not proof, someone else's opinion is also not proof, nor ten people's shared opinion, nor ten million, as far as objective proof is concerned. 

So:  Many groups CLAIM to have identified a set of objective morals.  These sets contradict each other:  for instance you do not have the same set of morals as that of someone practicing the human-sacrificing Aztec religion.  THESE CLAIMS CANNOT ALL BE CORRECT.  (This is inherent to the question; your objection was meaningless.)  Therefore, how do you propose to differentiate the true claim(s) about objective morals from the false ones, i.e. what is your PROOF that you are objectively correct? 

Or, is faith and/or opinion all you are basing it on?