Premise: Objective morals do not exist

Originally posted by @fmf
Would you participate in the killing of a particular nation or ethnic group, and believe it to be objectively morally sound, if you believed your god figure had told you to do it.

No, I wouldn't believe that.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
I mean "a thing that is undeniably the case."

"A brute fact is a fact that has no explanation. More narrowly, brute facts may instead be defined as those facts which cannot be explained (as opposed to simply having no explanation). To reject the existence of brute facts is to think that everything can be explained." [wiki]

Is that what you mean by "brute fact"?

To say something is "undeniably the case" is to refuse to explain it. To claim it is a "brute fact" is to admit that you are unable to explain it meaning you are unable to provide objectively true facts.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
No, I wouldn't believe that.

Assuming you did believe it, would you participate in the killing of a particular nation or ethnic group, and believe it to be objectively the right thing to do, if your god figure told you to do it.

Originally posted by @fmf
"A brute fact is a fact that has no explanation. More narrowly, brute facts may instead be defined as those facts which cannot be explained (as opposed to simply having no explanation). To reject the existence of brute facts is to think that everything can be explained." [wiki]

Is that what you mean by "brute fact"?

To say something is "undeniably the cas ...[text shortened]... dmit that you are unable to explain it meaning you are unable to provide objectively true facts.

If you disagree that it is a brute fact feel free to tell me why it would be morally acceptable to torture a baby for fun.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
So instead of providing an example of a loaded question that I have asked, you instead ask another one. As I said, I'm not interested.

I have complained many times about what I thought were your loaded questions. They are examples of what I mean. It's as if you don't read my posts.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If you disagree that it is a brute fact feel free to tell me why it would be morally acceptable to torture a baby for fun.

Why not address what I have put to you in my contribution to the conversation rather than trying to brush past what I've said by asking me to do something?

Originally posted by @fmf
Assuming you did believe it, would you participate in the killing of a particular nation or ethnic group, and believe it to be objectively the right thing to do, if your god figure told you to do it.

Not interested in your loaded questions.

Assuming you did believe that asking loaded questions was a good debating technique when in fact it isn't, would you continue to ask them anyway?

Originally posted by @fmf
Why not address what I have put to you in my contribution to the conversation rather than trying to brush past what I've said by asking me to do something?

Why not tell my why it isn't always wrong to torture babies for fun rather than trying to brush past what I've said by asking me loaded questions?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Not interested in your loaded questions.

It was along similar lines to one of your style of 'thought exercises' where you start something with "Assuming god (as you perceive him) exists, ..." and then you say something or other where the only answer you will accept is the one you agree with.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Why not tell my why it isn't always wrong to torture babies for fun rather than trying to brush past what I've said by asking me loaded questions?

In answer to JS357 you said it was a "brute fact". This means that you believe there is no explanation for it. If you believe there is no explanation for it, why are you now asking me to provide an explanation?

Originally posted by @fmf
It was along similar lines to one of your style of 'thought exercises' where you start something with "Assuming god (as you perceive him) exists, ..." and then you say something or other where the only answer you will accept is the one you agree with.

Quote it and we can discuss it.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Why not tell my why it isn't always wrong to torture babies for fun ...

You know exactly why I think it is wrong to torture babies for fun - and cannot conceive of any circumstances when it would be the right thing to do - because we have talked about it before. Why are you asking me about it again?

Originally posted by @fmf
In answer to JS357 you said it was a "brute fact". This means that you believe there is no explanation for it. If you believe there is no explanation for it, why are you now asking me to provide an explanation?

Well obviously because you seem to disagree that it is a brute fact! If it isn't you could surely provide an explanation as to why it isn't.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Quote it and we can discuss it.

I complained to you before several times about your 'Assuming I am right about god and morality...' cod-discourse gimmicks, but you just ignored it every time. If you want to discuss it now all of a sudden go back and find one of them and do so. I have no need to repeat myself.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Well obviously because you seem to disagree that it is a brute fact! If it isn't you could surely provide an explanation as to why it isn't.

The issue is that you think it is "objective" at the same time as you won't provide any "objective facts" and instead plead that you simply cannot explain it. Meanwhile, I have no difficulty at all explaining why I believe it is wrong to torture babies for fun.