Sure....Hence you replied in such a way I could imagine you frothing at the mouth as you typed furious insults at me. Typing "Communism and Nazism are still #1 in Atheists' greatest accomplishments" really sticks in your craw. I am also sure having pretty much everyone who is not an Atheist, think atheists are as trustworthy as rapists had to sting too.
As an Athiest, I truly believe Communism and Nazism are my greatest accomplishments.
As an Athiest, I truly believe Communism and Nazism are my greatest accomplishments.
Actually, Lionel. I do understand how unfair my statement is towards most Atheists. I really do. But it is a pittance compared to the mountain of turds thrown at Christians on this message board by Atheists. It feels good to hurl some back. I am sure most Atheists on this message board have no idea, or even care, how unfair they have been.
You are still trolling and still losing dude. Let me guess.. you actually believe the internet meme that Stalin and Hitler were closet Christians? All the best to you.
Actually, Lionel. I do understand how unfair my statement is towards most Atheists. I really do. But it is a pittance compared to the mountain of turds thrown at Christians on this message board by Atheists. It feels good to hurl some back. I am sure most Atheists on this message board have no idea, or even care, how unfair they have been.
As an Atheist, I routinely throw turds at Christians
You are still trolling and still losing dude. Let me guess.. you actually believe the internet meme that Stalin and Hitler were closet Christians? All the best to you.
Sure....Hence you replied in such a way I could imagine you frothing at the mouth as you typed furious insults at me. Typing "Communism and Nazism are still #1 in Atheists' greatest accomplishments" really sticks in your craw. I am also sure having pretty much everyone who is not an Atheist, think atheists are as trustworthy as rapists had to sting too.
Did my post sting, Hoz?
__________________
"An adherent of homeopathy has no brain. They have skull water with the memory of a brain."
But what if a person does not believe that there is an objective moral standard? If we replace your person with another person who says, "I can't state that torturing babies is wrong because I don't think that anything can be objectively right or wrong." Now he or she may find the torturing of babies to be distasteful and not want anybody to do it, but it doesn't follow from that perspective that an objective moral standard inevitably exists.
Well, a couple of things.
First, the "torturing babies" example was just that, an example. It was intended to provide a touchstone for a thought experiment, I was not positing it as an objectively true moral principle. It may or may not be. The point was simply that if we take it as read that there IS one such principle, whatever it is, no matter how narrow a proposition, a fulsome objective moral "code", if you will, could be extrapolated therefrom. Hence, objectivism is the correct view. At that point it becomes a debate as to what the right objective standard is, and we start shooting down things like hedonism and utilitarianism and divine command.
Acceptance of my view on this necessarily depends on accepting that there is at least some action, either generally or specifically (again, to use an example, "torturing babies is wrong" or "torturing THIS baby would be wrong). Without that, I think, you're either a relativist or a moral skeptic. The former, as we agreed, can be rejected. The belief that morality doesn't actually exist is something that just can't be argued with, there's no discussion to have there.
By the way I realize I've essentially set rules to a game that can't be lost. What it comes down to is really a framework for any moral discussion. They tend to be disjointed as this thread would indicate. Everyone has three choices that I can see. First, you accept what I am positing and we get to talking about what the source of objective morality should be. Second, you espouse relativism, which after a short discussion we all decide reduces to individualism which reduces to skepticism. Third, you espouse skepticism, discussion over.
Now, in your example, where the hypothetical individual expresses moral skepticism but then, as you say, doesn't want anyone to engage in a particular behaviour, I have to ask what the basis for that would be if not morality. If phrased as a question, morality is classically "how ought we to act?" It seems that this hypothetical individual is answering that question in a particular instance, and thereby expressing a moral view. Without that basis, it seems to me that any preference that people do or not do something is totally arbitrary, no?
Quote:
It certainly seems as though there are some actions (such as torturing babies) that are condemned with near unanimity, that imply objective moral values, but the fact that these values are neither innate (granted, that might be argued) nor directing human behavior is problematic for me.
Well, clearly some of these near-unanimous standards direct human behaviour empirically, but that's not really a hill I want to fight on precisely because it's empirical and everything I've been talking about has been theoretical.
You are still trolling and still losing dude. Let me guess.. you actually believe the internet meme that Stalin and Hitler were closet Christians? All the best to you.
Did you even read my post? Hitler was not a closet Catholic. He was openly religious so he could manipulate the masses into a frenzy. Hitler preyed on the centuries of anti-semitism created by the Catholic church.
To their credit, the church officially condemned the racism of Nazism in 1937 and did their best to help Jews escape Germany, as shown in the "Mit brennender Sorge"
I love that argument when Christians get upset and hurl some insults etc. It's like when David Suzuki protests against oil and gas yet continues to fly his private jets to the locations.
Serious question for the athiests and I don't want to start a new thread but are any of you offended by the "Merry Christmas" saying this time of year? Or has Christmas become more of a cultural holiday to you?
Even if Christmas wasn't a cultural holiday (and I think it very much is), why would I be offended by someone using words appropriate for the holiday, related to the history of that holiday?
"Merry Christmas" doesn't offend me. "Happy Easter" doesn't either even though I don't believe in either the Easter bunny or Ishtar.
Happy Halloween is fine even though I don't believe in ghosts or demons.
I also wouldn't be offended by Happy Hanukkah despite not being Jewish.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
Even if Christmas wasn't a cultural holiday (and I think it very much is), why would I be offended by someone using words appropriate for the holiday, related to the history of that holiday?
"Merry Christmas" doesn't offend me. "Happy Easter" doesn't either even though I don't believe in either the Easter bunny or Ishtar.
Happy Halloween is fine even though I don't believe in ghosts or demons.
I also wouldn't be offended by Happy Hanukkah despite not being Jewish.
Even if Christmas wasn't a cultural holiday (and I think it very much is), why would I be offended by someone using words appropriate for the holiday, related to the history of that holiday?
"Merry Christmas" doesn't offend me. "Happy Easter" doesn't either even though I don't believe in either the Easter bunny or Ishtar.
Happy Halloween is fine even though I don't believe in ghosts or demons.
I also wouldn't be offended by Happy Hanukkah despite not being Jewish.
That's pretty much what I figured, I've never heard of Jewish or Muslim or athiests being offended by it either. I wonder where this whole PC thing came from to begin with- maybe marketing departments of retailers didn't want to exclude anyone.
