"Now I hate Islam"

[Anaxagoras]

What it comes down to is that there are no universal values, not because none of us are perfect enough or smart enough to figure them out but because the entire concept is fundamentally nonsensical. Morals are, by definition, expressions of subjective desires for the world.

Well said. This right here is the crux of the argument, and if I were a better communicator I would have entered the discussion with this paragraph.

I wasn't intentionally being obtuse, honest.

[David Erikson]

You are pretty much wrong there tiger. Things aren't objectively bad or good. There's always a subjective factor or two in that kind of judgement.

True. But to be fair you have to admit that there are certainly different degrees of subjectivity. For example, if the degree of subjectivity of some particular statement is very close (yes, subjectively :) ) to zero, the argument could be made that for all practical purposes the statement is reasonably objective.

(And yes, I am well aware that "reasonably objective" can be considered contradictorily by the purists among us, but I think you know what I meant)

All this doesn't mean that I agree with OP - I think that the idea that you can objectively prove that any religion is bad can not be realized. (although personally I agree with many of the OP's practical points) But I think that saying that "There is nothing new or objective under this Moon..." goes too far.

[ravenight]

You are pretty much wrong there tiger. Things aren't objectively bad or good. There's always a subjective factor or two in that kind of judgement.

My point was that this statement is no more true of "good" and "bad" than it is of "true" or "false", so stating that things aren't objectively bad or good isn't actually a counterpoint. There is no more degree of subjectivity in the statement "Cutting off people's heads is bad" than in the statement "the sky is blue" or "the Earth revolves around the Sun". The sky is not always blue, the Earth only revolves around the Sun if you choose the simplest way to do the mathematics, and cutting off someone's head is only bad if that person is alive. Which of these conditions is "subjective"? If nothing can be "true for all observers" then either everything is subjective, or the definition of objective is not "true for all observers".

[Tim Partlett]

That the sky is blue is a subjective opinion. That the earth rotates around the sun is objective fact. That you can't tell one from the other is probably the reason you can't grasp why something being good or bad cannot be objective truth.

Just stick with "I believe x to be absolutely bad". There's no need to force words to have meanings that they don't have.

[David Erikson]

That the sky is blue is a subjective opinion. That the earth rotates around the sun is objective fact. That you can't tell one from the other is probably the reason you can't grasp why something being good or bad cannot be objective truth.

Just stick with "I believe x to be absolutely bad". There's no need to force words to have meanings that they don't have.

"On the clear day the sky is blue" is an objective fact that exists because of the chemical content of the Earth atmposphere and the way it interacts with the passing light from the Sun. It is as objective as the fact that "the Earth rotates around the sun." The OP didn't mention the "clear day" cause, but it is clear that that's what he meant, unless your intend was to play word games. And "blue" can be (and is) definded through numeric light's wavelength.

[Tankero]

I think that argument is a bit tangential to the subject at hand.

[David Erikson]

I think that argument is a bit tangential to the subject at hand.

My point is that although it is true that a lot of things in our life are subjective, some people tend to go way far in arguing that everything is subjective.

[Tim Partlett]

"On the clear day the sky is blue" is an objective fact that exists because of the chemical content of the Earth atmposphere and the way it interacts with the passing light from the Sun. It is as objective as the fact that "the Earth rotates around the sun." The OP didn't mention the "clear day" cause, but it is clear that that's what he meant, unless your intend was to play word games. And "blue" can be (and is) definded through numeric light's wavelength.

Colours like "blue" are too imprecise for anything but judgements from a human perspective, hence the colour of the sky is a value judgement that will differ from person to person. Some might see it as cyan, others blue, others violet. That's makes it subjective. If you measure a certain area of the sky as having a certain wavelength of light (a typical blue sky would have a wavelength of about 475nm), then that would be an objective fact.

[StGabe]

My point is that although it is true that a lot of things in our life are subjective, some people tend to go way far in arguing that everything is subjective.

What's so wrong with subjectivity? Objectivity always come with a subjective basis. Objectivity is a means for evaluating our success in attaining subjective desires and reevaluating those desires and their incumbent assumptions. We subjectively determine a framework for the world and then objectively work within that framework.

Objectivity without subjectivity is meaningless. Subjectivity without objectivity is merely ineffective and unaccountable.

[ravenight]

That the sky is blue is a subjective opinion. That the earth rotates around the sun is objective fact. That you can't tell one from the other is probably the reason you can't grasp why something being good or bad cannot be objective truth.

The sky being blue is objective fact only if you agree about the definition of "blue", "the sky" and where you are going to observe it from. The Earth revolving around the Sun is the most convenient way to calculate the math, but is no more "objective fact" than that the Sun revolves around the Earth. In either case, the point is that you have to have shared definitions in order to agree about facts, yet we are perfectly happy to use the term "objective fact". Hence, despite the need for some shared definitions about what constitutes "bad", it is perfectly possible for certain things to be "objectively bad".

Just stick with "I believe x to be absolutely bad". There's no need to force words to have meanings that they don't have.

I would see "absolutely bad" as a stronger term than "objectively bad". One implies that there is nothing about X that is not bad, while the other merely implies that on the whole, from an outside perspective, X is bad.

[Tim Partlett]

Yeah, but you missed the "I think" part. With an objective fact there's no need to think, because it is an objective fact.

That's the problem: you are trying to turn opinion into fact. It's not about moral relativism, it's about twisting words against their intended meaning.

When this is done in an attempt to turn moral viewpoints into objective facts, this is basically a form of political correctness, except it isn't just a different way of saying the same thing, but patently incorrect.

The sky being blue is objective fact only if you agree about the definition of "blue", "the sky" and where you are going to observe it from. The Earth revolving around the Sun is the most convenient way to calculate the math, but is no more "objective fact" than that the Sun revolves around the Earth. In either case, the point is that you have to have shared definitions in order to agree about facts, yet we are perfectly happy to use the term "objective fact". Hence, despite the need for some shared definitions about what constitutes "bad", it is perfectly possible for certain things to be "objectively bad".

Objectivity is about measurements not agreements. You can't measure the badness of something. Terms like "bad", "blue", etc. are by definition subjective descriptions. Just go and read a basic school science book if you don't believe me.