Kyuuketsuki wrote:
That's exactly what you said since I quoted you, now you're backpedaling. This isn't rocket science you know.
Ad hominem is the tactic employed by one who can't reason his way thru a discussion.
But your warrant for making moral judgments is mere emotivism or societal convention, both of which are fungible. You cannot obligate anyone beyond yourself or those who agree with you to affirm that mass murder is immoral. The whole basis for the Nuremberg Trials is thus eliminated. Did we not have the moral right to try Nazi war criminals (even though their personal moral compass and that of their society's dictated that their actions were acceptable) by appealing to transcendent moral standards like Crimes Against Humanity?
Quote:That's not what I said, I said that atheism says nothing about anyone except that (that person) does not believe in current (or past) claims to the existence of gods ... it's nothing but a label, no philosophy! This isn't rocket science you know and I'm sure even you are capable of understanding the idea.
That's exactly what you said since I quoted you, now you're backpedaling. This isn't rocket science you know.
Quote:No they don't, they tend to take the assumptive position that there is no god unless there is evidence to support the claim and it is YOU and your cronies that are making the claim, the extraordinary claim therefore it is YOU and your cronies that need to provide the evidence.
Ad hominem is the tactic employed by one who can't reason his way thru a discussion.
Quote:I have every right because morality is a system of ethics, ethics are social and it is against a given culture's ethical/moral systems that we evaluate out behaviour and that of others. Obviously that also means I do not believe in evil or in absolute wrong or right but it doesn't stop me finding the behaviour of some individuals either morally uplifting or morally repugnant.
But your warrant for making moral judgments is mere emotivism or societal convention, both of which are fungible. You cannot obligate anyone beyond yourself or those who agree with you to affirm that mass murder is immoral. The whole basis for the Nuremberg Trials is thus eliminated. Did we not have the moral right to try Nazi war criminals (even though their personal moral compass and that of their society's dictated that their actions were acceptable) by appealing to transcendent moral standards like Crimes Against Humanity?
