Your atheism force you in this position because it is true, you cannot dictate ehat is roght or wrong...no individual can. Theism gives a ground for objective moral value...but that's out of the real of possibilities for you it seems.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I don't believe in objective morality since it changes all the time for every culture (and individual) depending on context. This is why I guess religious people become slowly their own heresies, choosing to believe what they want from their holy texts (much like a buffet).
Atheists live much the same. Each one develops their own morals, on the go. Religious people are not more "moral" than atheists. They just happen to base their morals on a different context (fear of God) rather than doing good for the sake of good.
Being theist or atheist does not make one moral or immoral, thats beside the point. The point is that there is no point of reference but the individual to define what is good or evil in an atheist framework. If there is a God, then there is one outside of individual preferences.
What Hitler minions or Staline's did was objectively evil, regardless if they thought it was right.
There are things that are so evil, like starving 7millions to death in Ukraine, that we can objectively point the evilness of it. Because of that, we are forced to recognize the reality of evil.
On your proposition, there is no virtue, values or actions that are better than an other. Mercy is no more valuable than vangeance.
To an atheist a God is nothing more than the fiction of a group of people's imagination. Much like they have a point of reference a holy book as more or less a legal reference the atheists rely on their own book of law. What? You can trust the judgment and point of reference of laws written 2000 years ago but you cannot trust an individuals point of view? Also. facts don't favor you in this matter. at all. Atheists make just 0.07% of people in federal prisons while they are more or less 15% of the population.
To call something objective it has to be accepted by everyone. Obviously Nazis and Communists did not think it was evil. This is why the tolerated and supported these people. Hence, not objective. Nothing is objective. Ever.
Indeed. From our point of view they are. From their point of view was revenge to defend other people, getting them back if you like.
Agreed.
We are talking about moral epistemology here about the reality of objective moral values. Whether someone is theist or not is beside the point all together. Atheist can act morally and theist immorally, but even then, according to your point of view there is no moral or immoral.
Whether or not it is written in a particular book is also beside the point. (that's moral ontology)
On the theist side, moral values are a transcendent reality, they are true independently to individual preferences.
But at this point, I think it's pointless to talk because in the post-modern point of view that you are holding on to, truth doesn't even exist..."everything is relative" as you say..
But then...is it objectively true that everything is relative? If so, you are living in a contradiction...if not, not everything is relative.
Dude, you brought it up and I answered. Follow up..
Exactly. Again, I was answering based on your own perception to demonstrate how subjective this is. again. follow up.
i know. exactly my point.
not always. hence the thousands of heresies. each person on the face of this earth is his own special moral compass. No two people hold the same morality. not even the same person holds the same morality at different times of the day.
no need to give it a name. "postmodern". I am trying to demonstrate to you EPISTEMOLOGICALLY . that your position is erroneous based on Popper's falsification. The burden of proof is on you. I merely hold the null hypothesis. You have to demonstrate everything else - hence why you drilled on the subject on a personal matter (what i think) rather than examine it philosophically. (you just started doing it).
Everything is relative including this statement. No need to put words in my mouth man. Now. All you have to do is demonstrate something, a premise that falsifies mine. I am waiting.
It's no use to talk with someone who can't see the contradiction in making a truth statement(an absolute) by saying "everything is relative". It's just empty words anyway right? Since there is no absolute or truth anyway.
I'm taking a leave. Have a good day.
This is what I am trying to say to you. You just happen to believe that objective truths exist THE SAME FOR EVERYONE. They do not. I wrote an article in the past detailing my position.
Again. 7.5 billion people on earth stemming from different cultures, backgrounds, histories, understandings of the world, etc..and you still believe that there are absolute truths? Again. show me. Make an argument. Don't "accuse" me of my moral values. That's lowly and cheap.
https://steemit.com/philosophy/@kyriacos/there-are-no-absolute-truths