Premise: Objective morals do not exist

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If the 'truth' that both them truths are strictly mind-depended and none of them is objectively existent is not objectively true it is a self defeating statement.

How is it a self defeating statement? I never said that whatever I said is objectively true. I said that whatever I say is strictly subjective. You appear unable to understand, so an example could be useful.

You told me: “You don't know that abiogenesis occurred without an intelligent agent being involved yet you are happy to assume it did. Hypocrisy much?”
Your first phrase describes clearly your purely subjective string of thoughts, and then follows a question you subjectively asked me.

I replied you: “I never said that. Hypocrisy does not exist on my side”.
As you may notice, this time I stood corrected and I did not misspell the word “hypocrisy”. These two phrases were my purely subjective answer to your purely subjective question –I will not hold my breath until you get to manage to reply, though
😵

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Assuming God doesn't exist and your brain is the product of randomly firing particles, how can you even trust your mental activity?

My brain is not "the product of randomly firing particles", regardless of one’s assumption about G-d’s existence or non-existence. Anyway.

I trust my mental activity herenow because I have no other instrument than my bodymind handy; when I see a track coming, I take care. Shocking, I know😵

Originally posted by @black-beetle
How is it a self defeating statement? I never said that whatever I said is objectively true. I said that whatever I say is strictly subjective. You appear unable to understand, so an example could be useful.

You told me: “You don't know that abiogenesis occurred without an intelligent agent being involved yet you are happy to assume it did. Hypocris ...[text shortened]... rely subjective question –I will not hold my breath until you get to manage to reply, though
😵

So if what you are saying is strictly subjective that means it is only true for you, yet you are claiming that it also applies to me are you not?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Assuming God doesn't exist and your brain is the product of randomly firing particles, how can you even trust your mental activity?

At the other joke of yours, your thread “A follower of Satan”, I explained in detail the reasons why your beliefs as regards the OP in the context of the Christian perspective are not tenable.

Assuming G-d exists according to the Scripture, when your subjective beliefs even about issues related to the core tenets of your religion are false, and when you subjectively evaluate your pseudoscientific creationist superstitions as better theories of reality than the validated herenow scientific theories of reality, what exactly makes you feel so sure that your subjectivism could ever be “objective”? If you think this time you can prove that “objectivity” is something more than our consensus regarding our collective subjectivity, kindly please do it😵

Originally posted by @dj2becker
So if what you are saying is strictly subjective that means it is only true for you, yet you are claiming that it also applies to me are you not?

I never claimed my subjectivity is objective. I never told you that whatever I say applies to you too; whether it applies or not, is all about your own subjective evaluation of the mind.

I told you repeatedly that my subjectivity is either accurate/ tenable/ viable or false/ untenable/ non viable, always in a specific context. If you happen to agree or to disagree with me, is irrelevant. You are free to be as fully subjective as everybody😵

Originally posted by @dj2becker
When you say 'almost everyone', to whom does it not apply?

The mentally unhinged,....Lego.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
You have subjectively determined that it doesn't. If your statement is subjective it could well be wrong.

Of course. But same for your view, where you subjectively determined that morality is objective.

Little kids need instruction on right from wrong. Christians are like children who haven't learned to think yet.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Why would I have to choose between only those two options? 🙄

Thought experiments boggle you, or are you just afraid to choose?

Originally posted by @black-beetle
How is it a self defeating statement? I never said that whatever I said is objectively true. I said that whatever I say is strictly subjective. You appear unable to understand, so an example could be useful.

You told me: “You don't know that abiogenesis occurred without an intelligent agent being involved yet you are happy to assume it did. Hypocris ...[text shortened]... rely subjective question –I will not hold my breath until you get to manage to reply, though
😵

If it is subjectively true that there is no objective truth, why would the subjective view that objective truth exists be invalid?

Originally posted by @black-beetle
My brain is not "the product of randomly firing particles", regardless of one’s assumption about G-d’s existence or non-existence. Anyway.

I trust my mental activity herenow because I have no other instrument than my bodymind handy; when I see a track coming, I take care. Shocking, I know😵

If God does exist, and your mind is the product of an intelligent designer would you agree that you would have more reason to trust it then than if it were merely the product of random chance?

Originally posted by @apathist
Of course. But same for your view, where you subjectively determined that morality is objective.

Little kids need instruction on right from wrong. Christians are like children who haven't learned to think yet.

1. If what you believe is common sense contradicts what someone else considers to be common sense, then are your judgments really “common sense”?

2. If, however, you say that your common sense morals should be followed by others because they are right, then how is that not being arrogant since you are elevating your personal, subjective, moral opinions above those of others and saying they should follow what you believe?

Originally posted by @apathist
Thought experiments boggle you, or are you just afraid to choose?

Neither.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If it is subjectively true that there is no objective truth, why would the subjective view that objective truth exists be invalid?

...

You aren't very good with logic.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
... If, however, you say that your common sense morals should be followed by others because they are right, then how is that not being arrogant since you are elevating your personal, subjective, moral opinions above those of others and saying they should follow what you believe?

I think that's a good question, in that it manages to reveal part of your confusion. I don't claim that others should believe as I do. When it comes to moral issues, I merely draw a line in the sand. Do you understand what that means? My moral sense tells me what I will accept and what I will fight against.

You, like everyone else, gets to figure out where to draw your own lines.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Neither.

It is both.