Wrong. Fact: The earth is spherical. Was this in universal agreement some 400 years ago? Just because some people might disagree with a moral truth does not mean it isn't a moral truth. For example, martin believes no human life is sacred and we should kill all of the unborn babies we want. (does he enjoy his life? is he willing to have himself aborted and thinks that would have been just fine?) Misguided people who think they can determine right from wrong for themselves apart from all spiritual and governmental authority have caused all of humanity's problems from DAY 1.
Bad example. Morality can not be verified with scientific evidence. You can base your moral rationale on scientific facts, but someone else can just as easily theirs on a different set of scientific facts, or on no facts at all.
Well, maybe not 400 years ago, but at some point in time there was no evidence that the world was spherical. Thus, it was a matter of opinion & although a fact existed no one knew the answer. Sure, some people turned out to be right & some wrong, but at that point in time nobody knew which one it would be. Ya'll keep using scientific facts to support your argument over moral truths. Morality is a belief. Beliefs, by definition, are something that an INDIVIDUAL holds & are not something that science is going to prove right or wrong. Whether an act should be considered right or wrong is a belief. When people share the same beliefs, we can create a society based on that. However, when the public is split on the issue (abortion, for instance) there is no "correct" answer at this point in time. Later in the future, people might be able to look back & mostly agree that the right decision was made or vise versa & thus ultimately it could be viewed as right or wrong, but it will always be a belief and thus defined by each person.
There are perhaps no universal facts. One man's truth is another man's inaccurate assessment. The earth is in fact . . . an oblate ellipsoid, not a sphere.
Actually it's an oblate spheroid, which by definition is a surface of revolution obtained by revolving an ellipse around its minor axis. Since a circle is a special type of ellipse, the definition is technically correct. Also, having a equatorial radius of 6378 km and a polar radius of 6357 km, the ratio is 0.3% off. Close enough to me
Well, technically no. An ellipsoid is indeed a type of a spheroid, but neither is a sphere. :hihi: spher·oid noun A body that is shaped like a sphere but is not perfectly round, especially an ellipsoid that is generated by revolving an ellipse around one of its axes. sphere noun A three-dimensional surface, all points of which are equidistant from a fixed point. My point is . . . to a philosopher, the earth is a sphere and that is effectively the truth. But to a geodicist it is inaccurrate and not the truth.
but even these are not universal truths agreed upon by everyone. number 1 is not only not immoral it is just about the best thing possible. number 2 is fine, according to the millions of people who are fine with murdering fetuses. number 3 is ok according to you and me, because we steal things like music and software, dont we? and number 4 is not wrong at all. racism is terrific. who am i to tell people which races they have to like and dislike. racism is as politically incorrect as almost anything, but is not immoral. i love racism. my point is that you are announcing your morals as if they are universal, but there are millions of people who disagree. thats what subjective means. people see it differently. you will claim that magic man told you what right and wrong is. but he hasnt told everyone else. with you it always comes down to magic. the rest of us can discuss things all day, but you already have the answers by magic.
oddly enough, this isnt the first time we have discussed oblate spheroids http://www.tigerforums.com/showthread.php?t=14407&highlight=oblate
