RE: Abortion: 10 years as an atheist and I still don't get it
March 5, 2020 at 12:39 pm
(This post was last modified: March 5, 2020 at 12:39 pm by R00tKiT.)
(February 26, 2020 at 9:18 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: That's something that -you- think, not something that atheists think. Your own inability to understand why the differences in life lead to different moral conclusions about how we treat life is your own problem, and not atheist's problem.
Any human being with two brain cells to rub together can recognize a moral difference in using a hedge trimmer on a bush, and a human hand. It doesn't matter whether or not gods exists, and obviously we don't need to talk about gods to show why that would be a problem. We need only refer to the differences between a bush and a human being.
Hoping to offer some criticism of atheism, instead...you've indicated that you..personally, would not know why that was wrong in the absence of some djinn. Is that really true?
You are misrepresenting the argument, that's a cute strawman, btw.
The challenge atheists face is theoretical, we are well aware of that as theists. When you say "recognize moral difference" you're simply begging the question and defer to the common sense of any "human being with two brain cells". Why can't you then, use this same common sense when it comes to wonder, purpose, etc. ? Why are you so practical regarding the moral questions, and so stubbornly theoretical regarding God ?
The fact that we know a priori what is right and what is wrong is an argument in the theist camp, so make sure you remember that in your next answer.
(February 26, 2020 at 9:18 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Sure they can. More to the point, supposing god has no bearing on objective moral values anyway. Either things are morally true with respect to facts about the object or act....moral realism - or they are true with respect to facts about some subject - their attitudes, feelings, and wishes. Moral subjectivism.
I just finished reading the stanford encyclopedia stuff about moral realism. It's a big begging-the-question morality you have there, any "morally true fact about the object" is a bald assertion, you have nothing to back it up. You have a cold and sober materialistic world with no good and bad tags, you need to deal with that. That's your atheism. Saying that moral facts = mathematical facts again goes back to very debatable premises.
