Uh, those things were accepted practice in that society at that time. Lol. So you are completely ignorant of world history. Got it.
No, it’s objective fact. You were shown morality has changed countless times through out the entirety of human history. That is the definition of subjective.
That is YOUR morality as defined. Absolute morality NEVER changes. Evil has always been evil. Good is always good. You just have a problem defining them because you confuse them for your own justifications. That is why they change in your perspective.
absolute morality doesn’t exist, as you’ve been shown. evil and good is also subjective. What was evil 500 years ago is not evil now. What is evil now wasn’t evil just 100 years ago.
because you judge an imperfect judgement. That is the world according to Rahl. We were given 10 commandments. Whether or not you recognize that.....they are carved in stone at our Nations capital. The Jews took those ten, and "modified" them into over 600. That is the "nature of mankind" to add laws so he can change and manipulate them. It makes him proud of himself. Jesus came along, said he didn't intend to do away with the ten, but He summed them up in two. Drives you crazy doesn't it? Seems to be that evil is "subjective" to some so they can embrace various aspects of it. Evil always destroys.
The only failure here is your refusal to do your homework. Not all atheists are the "neoatheists" you imagine, and no, not all atheists are materialists. There are dualists, idealists, etc. Hell, for one famous example, check out Bertrand Russell, who is, like myself, a neutral monist rather than being a materialist. I'm sorry that facts are once again inconvenient for your dogma, which you always express as a just-so argument and for which you always fail to provide any actual reasoning or fact to defend. Please keep that in mind the next time you choose to accuse your pet "neoatheists" of the same. Look up emergence sometime. I can provide links if you want. Long story short: even if all atheists were materialists (and they aren't), it wouldn't mean that they are all reductionists. Also, please make up your mind. You've stated in the past that you aren't a theist. Yet you make an argument like this, which means you either don't believe in value or you understand that value can exist without a God. Your "but values are magic" argument is nothing but yet another argument from ignorance. You don't understand how it works, so you jump to the conclusion that it must be magic. Trying to see how many straw men you can cram in one post?
The same scriptures that say God gave us the 10 commandments says that God is the source of those other ~600 laws.
As I’ve shown, that is the way the world is. Correction. There is something called the 10 commandments, written in a book of fiction. I can give you a endless amount of books with different religious tenants. No, fiction doesn’t drive me crazy. evil is subjective for everyone. I’ve already shown you that.
Yes, they have. Unless you are saying that you want to outlaw the worship of any God but Yahweh, on pain of death.
I dont have a problem with that, if, that is 'IF' you can demonstrate what it would take to prove the existence of G/god. AFAIK, you have 2 and only 2 choices, material /natural or nonmateriall/supernatural, so enlighten us if this is not just another neoatheist rabbit hole.
Your fake dichotomy, itself a rabbit hole, does not interest me. It starts with a false assumption. You assume that the only options are reductionist materialism or theism, which is a bizarre superstition in-and-of-itself. Also, you also one again dodged whether or not you are a theist, something you continually present self-contradictory statements and positions regarding. Hell, you even go back and forth between saying that you aren't a theist and then saying that EVERYONE is a theist. You are either just trolling or you haven't thought this through.
Are you using the same calculator rahl uses? Ah so like rahl you have nothing, and cant even correctly lay out the comparison, got it!
Either 1) You understand that values can exist without God 2) You are claiming to be a theist or 3) You are admitting you have no values Well, there's always 4) You understand that this philosophy you've presented is entirely incoherent and are now simply avoiding that facts and resorting to trolling instead. I'd ask "Which is it," but you've already demonstrated that you won't touch this argument with a 10 foot pole, making #4 seem more and more likely. By the way, I've already presented you with the alternative you asked for, and you completely ignored it, just like you've ignored the holes that have been demonstrated in your argument. Who is it that has nothing now?
God exists in the supernatural realm. So explain how the atheist god 'science' can provide moral values. Post your scientific proofs and hypothesis, or give us the basis of the avenue you are trying to take this.
Seems to me like most of our attempts to codify ethics and morality all involve trying to look at our empathy in the abstract and universalize it as much as possible. It is telling that we "test" ethical theories by using thought experiments . . . to see if various scenarios match with our empathy.
Empathy. Meanwhile, your argument has been proven to be internally inconsistent and incoherent. I've provided a source of empathy that does not require God and I've shown that your dichotomy is a false one. Good day.
ah, got it, another quick wiki read that sounded good at first blush but when challenged and it comes to supporting it its right back to sucking water with the titanic. Unless of course you can scientifically prove empathy exists in the natural realm? You would win the next 10 no-bell prizes for the unification of the natural and supernatural!
I've answered your questions and you've dodged all of mine. I've offered to provide sources, but my experience has been that you always refuse to address those as well. As a reminder: You've claimed that morals/values have to come from God You've claimed you aren't a theist You've claimed you have morals/values Start working on that.
FALSE thats your claim, I claimed morals/values cannot come from the natural side of the fence. FALSE thats your claim FALSE thats your claim
@Kokomojojo You've asked for an alternative to theism and reductivist materialism. I've provided one and am willing to provide more and/or discuss those alternatives in detail You've asked for a basis for morality that doesn't require God. I've provided one and am willing to discuss in detail You've been shown the inconsistency in your argument and have refused to discuss any aspect of it. I'll give you 3 more shots to engage in an intellectually honest discussion of these issues above.
