The Religious Belief and Mental Health thread is too long to follow, yet keeps going on a lengthy tangent anyway. Obviously, the combatants aren't done yet. So this thread is for those who still want to carry on the conversation.
For my part, keiths' silly, flip-flopping assertions demonstrate that he cannot figure out what the heck is being discussed. He's portrayed the concept at issue several ways, depending on who has most recently debunked his silly, flip-flopping assertions.
For example, in my response to Raevmo on Oct. 25, I forwarded the notion that "of course there are objective morals," as these are agreed upon by a majority and codified into law (religious, cultural or political) applying to ALL subject to the enforcement provisions provided. In forwarding that notion, I further mentioned that of course there are those few who disagree (will break the law and incur punishments), and that laws change – evolve – over time as our sense of right and wrong hopefully progresses.
To which keiths responded:
The objective morality we're talking about in this thread is absolute morality "” a standard that holds regardless of an individual's personal inclinations, cultural background, or genetic makeup.
Notice the italicized qualifier "absolute." Thus did keiths try to divert the subject early on in that thread from what is objective to what is absolute. This was of course quickly dropped when the difference was pointed out and he had no reasonable rejoinder. Absolute morality simply wasn't the subject under discussion. Objective morality was.
The objectified moral standard applies to ALL subjects regardless of whether they agree or choose to violate. If they get caught violating, they get arrested, tried, fined or imprisoned, and in the case of murder, possibly executed. In order to be absolute in the sense keiths appealed to, there would be no need for objective codification because agreement and adherence to the moral standard would be universal.
Way on down the thread at 300+ comments, keiths – still strangely unwilling to admit defeat or just let the discussion slide – replies to stunney with yet another appeal to the soundly refuted appeal to 'absolute truth' that no one (including scientists) has access to in this reality:
As I've said before, if you want to establish something as objectively immoral, you need to appeal to something more than mere consensus.
For the record, since I'm starting this carry-over thread, keiths has just refuted the entire paradigm of evolutionary biology and indicted the whole 'culture war' being carried on by posers cloaking themselves in the mantle of science in order to pretend that their consensus theoretic is some kind of OBJECTIVE truth (a.k.a. per this argument 'absolute') about biological evolution.
Good job, keiths!