(March 10, 2015 at 1:25 pm)Esquilax Wrote: This question comes up a lot, and it has the same problem I pointed out in my last post, where if the theist stopped questioning the atheist for a second and allowed their own beliefs to be questioned, it'd become pretty clear that A: the theistic position contains no answer for the problem they poke into the atheist one, and that B: the theist already has an answer, not specifically present in their theism, that works.
What if there's a conflict between two theistic moral absolutes, Steve?
You're not supposed to bear false witness, and you're not supposed to allow the innocent to come to harm, so what if you're in a situation where not lying will directly lead to someone innocent coming to harm? Chances are you'll weigh the two options, think about the consequences, and- I hope- pick the one that saves the innocent from harm.
Why would that not be sufficient for an atheist, too?
There is at least some agreement on this forum that philosophically speaking, atheism leads to ethical nihilism. Is that your position?
If so, how does one condemn someone for pursuing self interest. Let's take something that is not so "front-loaded". How about selling drugs to adults?
