RE: Abortion: 10 years as an atheist and I still don't get it
February 26, 2020 at 9:39 am
(This post was last modified: February 26, 2020 at 9:54 am by The Grand Nudger.)
He's the only obstacle to his own understanding.
As far as the above goes, that would be a subjectivist justification if it was offered in that context, as it is it's a description of functional relativism or functional subjectivism - which is true regardless of what meta-ethical position turns out to be the accurate one.
It's still a justification, just as surely and of precisely the same type as "presupposing god" is. Dawkins famously confuses moral objectivism for moral absolutism, and thinking that there are compelling arguments against moral absolutism, discards objectivism. In this, Dawkins is not alone. Similarly, he confuses moral objectivism with god beliefs.....which is a very common misunderstanding in the atheist community. I like to cut the god botherers some slack here. The subject is complicated, the terms used can be (or at least seem to be) misleading, and atheists are constantly shitting the moral bed when asked about their own position on morality. It's not completely out of the blue that the dipshits get it wrong.
Underneath all of this, what believers are trying to get at, trying to express, the deliverable good they attribute to a god...is going to be pretty much the same thing that objectivists are saying without any reference to gods. They think that there are moral facts, things truly right and wrong. They simply lack command of the semantics and inferences. God, as always, reduced to a crutch.
As far as the above goes, that would be a subjectivist justification if it was offered in that context, as it is it's a description of functional relativism or functional subjectivism - which is true regardless of what meta-ethical position turns out to be the accurate one.
It's still a justification, just as surely and of precisely the same type as "presupposing god" is. Dawkins famously confuses moral objectivism for moral absolutism, and thinking that there are compelling arguments against moral absolutism, discards objectivism. In this, Dawkins is not alone. Similarly, he confuses moral objectivism with god beliefs.....which is a very common misunderstanding in the atheist community. I like to cut the god botherers some slack here. The subject is complicated, the terms used can be (or at least seem to be) misleading, and atheists are constantly shitting the moral bed when asked about their own position on morality. It's not completely out of the blue that the dipshits get it wrong.
Underneath all of this, what believers are trying to get at, trying to express, the deliverable good they attribute to a god...is going to be pretty much the same thing that objectivists are saying without any reference to gods. They think that there are moral facts, things truly right and wrong. They simply lack command of the semantics and inferences. God, as always, reduced to a crutch.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
