TreesNightly

Religious apologists often confuse the word objective with words like absolute, transcendent, and universal--especially when talking about morality. To illustrate what objective means, I will now insult these people. They are stupid...at least in the subjective sense, which is a judgement I'm making influenced by personal feelings and opinions. However, in the recent past, I could test these people and state objectively that they are morons, imbeciles and idiots--each of these labels corresponding with an IQ score of 51�70, 21�50, and IQ of 0�20 respectively. A metric, like an IQ score, means that feelings and opinions can't factor in. Your IQ is your IQ regardless of what I personally think of you, and therefore objective.?

Search �morality� in Merriam-Webster and the first definition you�ll see is �beliefs about what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior.� That�s beliefs, plural. This implies that what I believe is right and wrong isn�t the only belief out there, which should be obvious. Add the word �objective� in front of a word with a definition like this and the result is an oxymoron. Morality, by definition, is subjective. Case closed. Well, of course the case isn�t closed. I can�t cite Merriam-Webster and expect millennia of philosophy to buckle.  Honestly, it isn�t even justified. Merriam-Webster has four definitions for the word �morality,� and MW is hardly the only dictionary in circulation. Should I go with the terminology of Google? Wikipedia? Who is the linguistic authority here? Few theists will deny the reality that different beliefs of right and wrong behavior exist, they just believe one in particular belief is true in an absolute and objective way, conveniently, it�s their own...