(July 16, 2017 at 3:30 pm)JackRussell Wrote:(July 16, 2017 at 3:13 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I keep being accused of misunderstanding. So I want to make sure I address you properly. Are you trying to change the subject, or is this a poisoning the well attempt? I believe that you hold to a subjective ontology of morality, so are you judging on the correct basis, or do you think that you are the basis?
Good question. Who knows the correct basis for assessing morality. I am saying it can only be the self and an understanding of empathy. I absolutely admit that doesn't address the problem of hard solipsism, but I don't know where that gets anybody.
I am sick and tired of morality as abstracts and I ain't no philosopher. Practical morality seems obviously secular, even to a well versed theist. Unless you subscribe to a divine command theory, because there are many biblically mandated things that are immoral to me. The it's just a game of he said, she said.
Name me a moral judgement that a theist could make that an un-beiliver couldn't?
I dare you.
LOL, I love that challenge. Hitchens always said it best, but I loved his follow-up; name something you could only get someone to do via their religious beliefs.
Religions were invented to impress and dupe illiterate, superstitious stone-age peasants. So in this modern, enlightened age of information, what's your excuse? Or are you saying with all your advantages, you were still tricked as easily as those early humans?
---
There is no better way to convey the least amount of information in the greatest amount of words than to try explaining your religious views.
---
There is no better way to convey the least amount of information in the greatest amount of words than to try explaining your religious views.