notjam

ever hear of a "nose". one can breathe and eat at the same time. fallacious argument. An important feature of the throat is the epiglottis, a flap which separates the esophagus from the trachea and prevents inhalation of food or drink. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Throat if you could prove that man's throat "evolved" you might have an argument. ever hear of a "nose". one can breathe and eat at the same time. fallacious argument. An important feature of the throat is the epiglottis, a flap which separates the esophagus from the trachea and prevents inhalation of food or drink. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Throat if you could prove that man's throat "evolved" you might have an argument. yes. which is why the faith based church of evolution must make up new terms like : "singularity" . / "dark matter" / "multi verse" / "relativity". aka "science of the gaps" . why do we have a "nose" ? we can eat and breathe at the same time. can you demonstrate how the human throat "evolved"? if so, that would be an argument against creation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Throat An important feature of the throat is the epiglottis, a flap which separates the esophagus from the trachea and prevents inhalation of food or drink. can you say "design"? why do we have a "nose" ? we can eat and breathe at the same time. can you demonstrate how the human throat "evolved"? if so, that would be an argument against creation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Throat An important feature of the throat is the epiglottis, a flap which separates the esophagus from the trachea and prevents inhalation of food or drink. can you say "design"? why do we have a "nose" ? we can eat and breathe at the same time. can you demonstrate how the human throat "evolved"? if so, that would be an argument against creation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Throat An important feature of the throat is the epiglottis, a flap which separates the esophagus from the trachea and prevents inhalation of food or drink. can you say " "science of the gaps" likes to make up new terms like "singularity, dark matter, multi verse". my favorite is "time did it" . if you kiss a frog and it turns into a prince , it's a fairy tale. but give it "millions of years" and it's science. time = magical fairly dust.

it seems you are trying to take "subjective morality" and extrapolate that into "objective morality" which is the same fallacy that evolutionists do with the evidence of "mutations/variations" (micro evolution) and extrapolate it into the faith based church of macro evolution. adding in the "magic fairy dust of TIME".

Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of asubject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met and are "bias-free"; that is, existing without biases caused by, feelings, ideas, etc. of a sentient subject. A second, broader meaning of the term refers to the ability in any context to judge fairly, without bias or external influence; this second meaning of objectivity is sometimes used synonymously withneutrality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

http://ancientaliensdebunked.com/ https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2im4IjZ6fev7EthX8eLnQhEVexWGM7Yy

math is a cognative, semantics of man. not a law onto itself. 2 + 2 = 4 only after man has given meaning and defenition to the symbols. it is purely semantics. not a law onto itself. (like language) I don't reference "his holienss stefs" newest book UPB. because I don't need some "new cool internet guy" to define anything for me. "objective morality" is not "universally preffered behavior". UPB is an attempt to explain away the "objective" part. with a "subjective consensus" . clearly becasue stef uses displacement of his resentment/scorn of his parents onto the concept of god http://www.amazon.com/Faith-Fatherless-The-Psychology-Atheism/dp/1586176870 which is pretty common among "militant atheists" . otherwise they would be agnostics. (a much more rational possition) Antisocial personality disorder does not disprove that "we all have a conscience" inherently. it might prove we all don't "act on it" but this is a fallacious argument. as I orginally stated : *(you misquoted me out of context) : if you agree that we all have a conscience within us that knows "objective morality" . (regardless of if we act on it or defy it) and by the way the fact that we can have "science" or "math" or "logic" or "consistency" also creates a problem for the atheist/evolutionists' assumption that this is all the result of "time + chance + matter " aka "primordial slime" ... and actually lends more "coherence" towards "intelligent design" aka "god".

"first principles" are "subjective" by definition. I did not fail to understand. anytime a man decides what is moral , or a goup of men, this is subjectve. maybe a subjective consensus. but still subjective. if you agree that we all have a conscience within us that knows "objective morality" . (regardless of if we act on it or defy it) then you agree that "objective morality" exists inherently . (regardless of culture/upbringing/environment) this might be a "proof of gods' existence" ie. if we agree on an "objective moral law, we must assume a moral law giver (god). if not. again : how does evolution/atheism account for "objective morality" ? it MUST REJECT it. anytime a man decides what is moral , or a goup of men, this is subjectve. maybe a subjective consensus. but still subjective. if you agree that we all have a conscience within us that knows "objective morality" . (regardless of if we act on it or defy it) then you agree that "objective morality" exists inherently . (regardless of culture/upbringing/environment) this might be a "proof of gods' existence" ie. if we agree on an "objective moral law, we must assume a moral law giver (god). if not. again : how does evolution/atheism account for "objective morality" ? it MUST REJECT it.

funny. so just since "his holiness stef" wrote a book in the last few years "objective morality" could not be explained? as much as I hate the pagan catholic church hierarchy, I think I hate modern internet "sacred cow" fanboys even more. so much for free thinkers. The non-aggression principle is based on the assumption of "objective morality" not the origination. you put the cart before the horse. also your "strawman" of "needing a holy book" just shows your emotionaly charged scorn/resentment. it does not address my premiss how can evolution/atheism account for "objective morality"? you must "as an atheist/evolutionist" either REJECT objective morality, or explain how this can come about via "time + chance + matter" aka "primordial slime" .

sounds like you are consistent to claim "atheism cannot account for objective morality" so do you reject the notion of "objective morality"? only relativisitc "subjective morality" exisits? the laws of logic and the scientific method itself could also be evidence of an "intelligent creator" . as apposed to randomness. how can there be laws of logic, physics, energy, or anything "consistent" in a world of relativity? (mathematics is separate , since it is a cognitive, semantical creation of man. like language) do you beleive that humans evolved from other animals? do you believe that all animals/life had a common evolution from primordial slime/soup? or are you saying that all life is not from a common abiogenesis? if so. no stawman. "first principles" are created in man's mind , which could only result in "subjective morality" or a "subjective consensus" . once you use the phrase "to determine ojective morality" it is not longer "objective" .by definition "subjective" . I have not claimed that "objective morality" comes from "arbitrary commandments of a diety, nor the pagan catholic priesthood". I am asserting that if "objective morality" exists, it must come from outside of "subjective man". so as an atheist/evolutionist you MUST REJECT OBJECTIVE MORALITY. since ther can be only one man's opinion on what is moral. hence "subjective morality" or a "subjective consensus" aka a bunch of guys in suits who decide.

that fact that atheist/evolutionists must write books about "objective morality" is evidence that this is a linch pin argument. don't you have a mind of your own and your own ideas? if so how do you explain "atheism/evolution account for objective morality" ? do you believe in "objective morality" ? if so how does atheism/evolution account for objective morality ?

who set's the "objective rule" ? a "subjective consensus" aka a bunch of guys in suits ? so would "objective morality" prove the existence of an objective moral law giver (god) ? or must you "as an atheist/evolutionist" abandon the believe in "objective morality" ?

so you argue that "objective morality" is an extension of "survival of the species" . then after a refutation , you abandon the belief in "objective morality" all together? that was unexpected. then the next sentence assert "ojective morality" in regards to theft? I did not assert "there was no morality outside of religion" I simply asked the question "how can evolution/atheism account for objective morality"?

the church of evolution says "time did it" : if you kiss a frog and it turns into a prince that is a fairy tale.... but give it "MILLIONS OF YEARS" and it's science.. time = magical fairy dust so how can evolution/atheism account for "objective morality" ? how can evolution/atheism account for "objective morality" ?

how can objective morality NOT be universal? by definitiion it MUST be or else it is subjective morality. why all the "anti religious" emotional baggage? this weakens your credability to mask emotional scorn/resentment with reason/logic. unbecoming. if there is a moral law giver (god) it could not and would not ever be lessoned by the actions of "people" . that is absurd. if a black man commits a crime does that mean all black men are criminals? if a child commits a crime does that mean his parents are criminals? if an atheist commits a crime does it mean all atheists are criminals? if the "moral agent" is the "evalutator" this is by definition "subjective morality" not "objective morality". so it seems you just asserted that you believe in "objective morality" yet try to derive it from "subjective morality". please explain. it seems you are trying to take "subjective morality" and extrapolate that into "objective morality" which is the same fallacy that evolutionists do in regards to the evidence of "mutations/variations" (micro evolution) and extrapolate it into the faith based church of macro evolution. adding in the "magic fairy dust of TIME". how can evolution/atheism account for "objective morality" ?