RE: Can Atheist be objectively moral in the case of a possible follower of an infallible?
July 22, 2015 at 4:45 am
When we do know, if we ever manage to know, we will then know. Until then, we do not know, so do not claim to know, because you do not know, and if you do know, show us how you know, so you can prove that you know.
As an atheist, I see words like good and evil as evidence that there were and are people who have an archaic view of how the universe works.
Words like good and evil are usually just things that people have found favorable or unfavorable (historically, religiously, and in general).
This can be seen in almost all languages, here's an example from Hebrew.
IE: the Hebrew word for evil רָע also means calamity, clearly showing that they had a cultural view that any time ra (calamity) was used, it was viewed as negative.
"Good" and "evil", like the word "love" are useless when talking about absolutes, as they refer to no clear concept, comparable to the word god.
As an atheist, I see words like good and evil as evidence that there were and are people who have an archaic view of how the universe works.
Words like good and evil are usually just things that people have found favorable or unfavorable (historically, religiously, and in general).
This can be seen in almost all languages, here's an example from Hebrew.
IE: the Hebrew word for evil רָע also means calamity, clearly showing that they had a cultural view that any time ra (calamity) was used, it was viewed as negative.
"Good" and "evil", like the word "love" are useless when talking about absolutes, as they refer to no clear concept, comparable to the word god.
Plato had defined Man as an animal, biped and featherless, and was applauded. Diogenes plucked a fowl and brought it into the lecture room with the words,
"Behold Plato's man!"
