RE: Meta-ethical argument for atheism
August 15, 2010 at 5:22 pm
(This post was last modified: August 15, 2010 at 5:24 pm by The Omnissiunt One.)
(August 15, 2010 at 5:15 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Well, killing grannies depends. If they're terminally ill and just want painless euthanasia I'm all for it.
That applies to younger people too of course.
That's true. Whether we should bump them off without their consent is a difficult issue, but certainly voluntary euthanasia is the way forward. Can't we all be like Oregon?
(August 15, 2010 at 5:18 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: How? This argument doesn't seem well thought out.
Are you trying to imply that humans give god the good attribute and therefore own their morality?
As I see it, this argument is not so much an argument against Christianity's truth, as against its being moral. Basically, the difficulty can be phrased like this: 'Is something good because God commands it, or does he command it because it's good?' If the former, morality is arbitrary. God could command the torture of babies, and that'd be considered 'good'. If the latter, then morality is independent of God, and we don't need a god for morality.
'We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.' H.L. Mencken
'False religion' is the ultimate tautology.
'It is just like man's vanity and impertinence to call an animal dumb because it is dumb to his dull perceptions.' Mark Twain
'I care not much for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it.' Abraham Lincoln
'False religion' is the ultimate tautology.
'It is just like man's vanity and impertinence to call an animal dumb because it is dumb to his dull perceptions.' Mark Twain
'I care not much for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it.' Abraham Lincoln
