Is it not interesting to hear atheists/agnostics speak of morality? In their elitism, they speak about that which they do not subscribe, as if they even know about that which they speak. The arrogance of it is a marvel. We are told, “[t]he very thought that there are no moral absolutes, in spite of what many religious leaders and other claim, is anathema to them.” I wonder if this is an absolute, and she is certain of it!
As has been said many times previous, morality comes from man, or not man. These are the only two options available for intelligible conversation. If it comes from man, then all is subjective, and Hitler (Stalin, etc.) did nothing morally wrong. If one asserts that they did, by what standard will the judgment be made?
If morality comes from “not man,” what is the source? Since atheists and agnostics have no source outside their personal “I think,” they are then unable to ascertain a source that can have any objectivity, and thereby benefit man. Would they offer rocks and dirt as the source, or the beasts of the field? Perhaps they would offer us the moon and the stars as a source?
Atheism, as an ideology, is devoid of a moral code that can, or will, benefit man. All the atheist can do is adopt the Christian moral code, and then ridicule others for their adoption of it. But, then, should we be surprised by such an empty ideology?
Printed 10.1.2014 in the Mattoon Journal-Gazette
etsop95 
“If it comes from man, then all is subjective, and Hitler (Stalin, etc.) did nothing morally wrong.”
According to whom?
Because according to my morality, he did plenty wrong. If you disagree with me, that’s fine, as long as you don’t mind me thinking you’re immoral.
You illustrate the point.
No, I asked a question.
According to whom did Hitler do nothing morally wrong?
Not according to me.
If morality is subjective, that is, it originates with man, then the moral code of one or the collective is a subjective action on the part of the originator. Since Nazi Germany operated by their law of Jewish extermination in their country, a law they originated, on what basis (or standard) will an atheist, agnostic, situation ethicist, etc., judge them wrong? Will it be by their own personal standard? If so, what is the source of that standard?
“on what basis (or standard) ”
Whatever basis they use to determine their morality, subjective or not.
I, for example, use harm and benefit in a broad sense to determine moral quandaries. The fact that exterminating people can be shown, evidentially, to be harmful both specifically and to society as a whole, puts it firmly in the ‘immoral’ box for me.
How do you determine genocide is immoral? Particularly when the god you claim to worship caused a couple of them? If a god did something, doesn’t that make it moral?
Thus, the standard you use is not really different than the standard they used, that is, it is merely subjective. You judged them wrong, but you are able to go no further in your judgment rendering than that you don’t like it. If one subscribed to that which Nazi Germany engaged, then that which you rendered in their direction (a judgment of wrong), they could just as easily rendered a judgment similar to you in your direction. Thus, no real difference in the standard/basis/foundation.
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 12:50 PM, etsop95 wrote:
>
” is not really different than the standard they used”
Except mine uses valid evidence. There’s used bigotry and racism.
And no one gets killed based off my standard.
Though true that may be, the foundation is the same: self. They were no more wrong then in what they did, than you are right today in what you do. Every man is his own god, and for one to judge in one direction or the other is merely arbitrary.
“the foundation is the same: self”
No. The foundation is evidence. You can choose to ignore evidence, of course. But that’s where the foundation is.
“They were no more wrong then in what they did”
According to whom?
According to me, they were wrong then.
“is merely arbitrary.”
Basing things off evidence is the exact opposite of ‘arbitrary’.
Evidence? Evidence of what? Your perspective, or another’s?
My perspective is based on evidence: remember how I said my morals are determined based on harm and benefit? Evidence shows us that killing people = harm.
Thus, my position on Hitler is based on evidence. Nothing arbitrary about it.
Very well. If another had a complete opposite perspective, like harming people, would that be an acceptable code to that one, and nothing arbitrary?
It obviously would be an acceptable code to that one, as they would be holding it.
It would not be acceptable to me. In which case, I would not associate with such a person.
That the two perspectives are opposite and both considered right from different vantage points makes that kind of morality arbitrary, subjective and meaningless. This is why society is as corrupt as it is – there is no moral compass.
“makes that kind of morality arbitrary”
Then yours is arbitrary, as I consider mine right and yours wrong.
Rather than continue this, we will let it go at this point. When you close your eyes for the last time, and me as well, we will know then.
Ah. Ending the conversation with a vague threat. How ‘moral’ of you…