Kentucky Church Bans Interracial Marriage

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]JaseHxC wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]JaseHxC wrote:
Institutions, both religious and marital are the downfall of society. It’s 2012 people, anyone who has a need for belief in a higher power or the need to be legally attached to someone in order to be happy are fools.[/quote]

Government is, at heart, a religious institution.[/quote]

And I also strongly believe that society does not require government for it to function properly and create sustainable life for the inhabitants of this planet. I only mentioned religious/marital as they were the most pertinent to this story, but any structured institution is an unnecessary evil for continued survival.[/quote]

So dieing is evil and survival is good? That sounds like how you are defining good and evil. Do you mean on an individual or species level?

Either way, that’s a horrible way to define them. If on the societal level, you can then justify horrible programs and ideologies. If on the individual, birth is evil, because it cause an individual death.

What I’m really getting at and finding funny, is that good and evil are religious institutions. You are defining a word without religious institutions by religious institutions.[/quote]

No.

Good and evil may be used words heavily used by the religious community, but they have meaning in the secular wold as well.

For those of us who believe in secular morality, things that are considered “good” or “evil/bad” are decided through the interaction of minds. You, I and the rest of society decide what should be given these labels. You don’t need a belief in a spirit world to do so.

[/quote]

Okay, if that is your definition, I simply disprove the argument, that the world is better off without religion, by disagreeing on what good is.

By this definition, good is nothing but what you call a pattern of firing neurons in your brain.

I myself say that it is a fact that rape is evil. It is not something that can be changed or decided by vote or popular opinion. It is wrong regardless of how many people think it isn’t.

If, evil is opinion, then how can you fault someone, and make a law based on, anyone’s specific morality? All that it takes, in your world, is to get 51% of the people to make an evil okay.[/quote]

How did you come to the conclusion rape is evil? Not say it isn’t, but how?[/quote]

I’ve gone through stages.

Just accepting the conclusion.
Attacking it with logic.
Asking myself about revelation.

Mainly I cannot bring myself in any way to acknowledge any possibility that it is not. Not that that is a real answer to your question.

Do you acknowledge that rape being bad or good is a matter of opinion? I cannot, so I conclude that it is evil.[/quote]

Hate to break it to you, but if you used your human faculties to decide rape was wrong (as opposed to supernatural guidance), then you subscribe to secular morality.

I have hard time really seeing your hypothetical as a realistic danger. If most of the world used their logic, reasoning or moral intuition as their source for what’s good and evil, there would be no chance of things like rape becoming socially acceptable .[/quote]

Okay, please provide an example of a situation where rape is right and good? Seriously, go nuts. I got to fucking hear this.

62

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Logic cannot provide a universal morality. I believe in a universal morality.

[/quote]

Sure it can. Morality is it’s own entity. We cannot describe it but we can know it by example. It’s linked with demise, suffering and choice. Where choice is absent so is morality. Anything that causes more suffering than the lack is an immoral act.

Do not underestimate logic, it is the master of all things in subjugation.

63

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Logic cannot provide a universal morality. I believe in a universal morality.

[/quote]

Sure it can. Morality is it’s own entity. We cannot describe it but we can know it by example. It’s linked with demise, suffering and choice. Where choice is absent so is morality. Anything that causes more suffering than the lack is an immoral act.

Do not underestimate logic, it is the master of all things in subjugation. [/quote]

You’ve only moved the debate as to “what is suffering”. Not to mention the vast majority of the world disagrees with this reasoning, including myself. Dr. Eduard Wirths Can be said to have made choices that decreased total suffering, but it was still evil.

Your definition also can be used to oppose itself based on what scale you look at. Are you discussing aggregate total of suffering or individual? If the individual makes the evaluation on their own level, they can do what they want to others. If it’s made on the social level, the collective can do what they want to the individual.

This also ignores the fact that the future is unknown. You are basing morality based on what you predict might happen in the future. And I’m sure you and I will disagree in those predictions.

Then there is the problem on agreeing what suffering even is. Physical pain? I cause myself physical pain in the gym and enjoy it.

Even if you agree what suffering is, there is the problem of weighting it when choosing between 2 scenarios. What is worse? letting a woman get raped, or a guy getting his leg cut off?

And even then, you have to run through all the same issues with what positive or “good” is and come up with some way to weight them against the negative.

Everything in your argument for universality is a mater of opinion, and something people will never agree on.

Of course there is no logical reason for prioritizing non-suffering over suffering to begin with. That was an irrational leap anyway.

Edit: I should also point out that real choice, isn’t a rational concept to begin with.

64

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

I don’t agree with what you have said in regards to the source of knowledge, but that’s a different debate entirely. Even if you can’t explain it, it’s irrational to jump to the conclusion it must be from a supernatural source.

The examples in your second paragraph are not of minds relying on their own logic and reasoning. All the examples you listed were from groups where religion played a large in role society. I remember reading slave traders would often quote a passage in the bible to justify slavery.

Secular morality is about using your own logic, reasoning, moral intuition in combination with your interaction with others.

[/quote]

Logic cannot provide a universal morality. I believe in a universal morality.

And this is where your argument really crumbles. In those situations there was societal consensus. By your own reasoning that is what makes right or wrong, not religion.

In fact the religion itself was by societal consensus. So those religious beliefs themselves pass your own test for morality.

And this also omits that much of that has been done outside of religion. But also, that quoting a Bible verse doesn’t mean that the slave trader was motivated by or justified the action to himself by religion. It is much more likely that was the method he used to justify himself to society. The truth is that he was an evil man who wanted to benefit himself through evil means and then search for a method of justification. In which case, he was relying on his internal sense of right and wrong and that is why he did what he did.

Do you really think he read the Bible and got “slavery is okay” out of it, then decided to go do it? Or do you think he first though internally and decided he wanted to get rich on slaves, then read the Bible to seek permission? In the second scenario, your brand of morality is to blame, not mine.[/quote]

I disagree, secular morality can provide a universal morality.

Listen, it appears you are interested in performing mental gymnastics to avoid the obvious truth.

If a slave trader identifies himself as part of a religion and refers to a holy book (in his eyes) to decide what is right and wrong my “brand of morality” is not to blame. His source of morality was the bible, and the bible clearly condones slavery. It’s an undeniable fact.

65

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]JaseHxC wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]JaseHxC wrote:
Institutions, both religious and marital are the downfall of society. It’s 2012 people, anyone who has a need for belief in a higher power or the need to be legally attached to someone in order to be happy are fools.[/quote]

Government is, at heart, a religious institution.[/quote]

And I also strongly believe that society does not require government for it to function properly and create sustainable life for the inhabitants of this planet. I only mentioned religious/marital as they were the most pertinent to this story, but any structured institution is an unnecessary evil for continued survival.[/quote]

So dieing is evil and survival is good? That sounds like how you are defining good and evil. Do you mean on an individual or species level?

Either way, that’s a horrible way to define them. If on the societal level, you can then justify horrible programs and ideologies. If on the individual, birth is evil, because it cause an individual death.

What I’m really getting at and finding funny, is that good and evil are religious institutions. You are defining a word without religious institutions by religious institutions.[/quote]

No.

Good and evil may be used words heavily used by the religious community, but they have meaning in the secular wold as well.

For those of us who believe in secular morality, things that are considered “good” or “evil/bad” are decided through the interaction of minds. You, I and the rest of society decide what should be given these labels. You don’t need a belief in a spirit world to do so.

[/quote]

Okay, if that is your definition, I simply disprove the argument, that the world is better off without religion, by disagreeing on what good is.

By this definition, good is nothing but what you call a pattern of firing neurons in your brain.

I myself say that it is a fact that rape is evil. It is not something that can be changed or decided by vote or popular opinion. It is wrong regardless of how many people think it isn’t.

If, evil is opinion, then how can you fault someone, and make a law based on, anyone’s specific morality? All that it takes, in your world, is to get 51% of the people to make an evil okay.[/quote]

How did you come to the conclusion rape is evil? Not say it isn’t, but how?[/quote]

I’ve gone through stages.

Just accepting the conclusion.
Attacking it with logic.
Asking myself about revelation.

Mainly I cannot bring myself in any way to acknowledge any possibility that it is not. Not that that is a real answer to your question.

Do you acknowledge that rape being bad or good is a matter of opinion? I cannot, so I conclude that it is evil.[/quote]

Hate to break it to you, but if you used your human faculties to decide rape was wrong (as opposed to supernatural guidance), then you subscribe to secular morality.

I have hard time really seeing your hypothetical as a realistic danger. If most of the world used their logic, reasoning or moral intuition as their source for what’s good and evil, there would be no chance of things like rape becoming socially acceptable .[/quote]

Okay, please provide an example of a situation where rape is right and good? Seriously, go nuts. I got to fucking hear this.[/quote]

??

You must have trouble following an argument.

I’m not interested in discussing this subject with you based on your past comments.

To you atheists have scripture because Richard Dawkins wrote a few books on the topic (just one of many nonsensical statements relating to atheism).

66

[quote]therajraj wrote:

I disagree, secular morality can provide a universal morality.

Listen, it appears you are interested in performing mental gymnastics to avoid the obvious truth.

If a slave trader identifies himself as part of a religion and refers to a holy book (in his eyes) to decide what is right and wrong my “brand of morality” is not to blame. His source of morality was the bible, and the bible clearly condones slavery. It’s an undeniable fact.

[/quote]

No mental gymnastics. I’m saying his source of morality is himself. And further that your source of morality (societal consent) also approved it.

I can identify myself as an atheist and kill someone, but that doesn’t mean that atheism caused it.

I wasn’t aware that the Bible condoned slavery. But it’s especially ironic, because Christians are also the ones that pushed abolition.

For your point to be true, the slave trader would have need to not become a slave trader if it wasn’t for the Bible, and you know that’s a load of crap.

67

[quote]therajraj wrote:

I disagree, secular morality can provide a universal morality.

[/quote]

Okay, what is it? Give me universal secular morality.

68

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Logic cannot provide a universal morality. I believe in a universal morality.

[/quote]

Sure it can. Morality is it’s own entity. We cannot describe it but we can know it by example. It’s linked with demise, suffering and choice. Where choice is absent so is morality. Anything that causes more suffering than the lack is an immoral act.

Do not underestimate logic, it is the master of all things in subjugation. [/quote]

You’ve only moved the debate as to “what is suffering”. Not to mention the vast majority of the world disagrees with this reasoning, including myself. Dr. Eduard Wirths Can be said to have made choices that decreased total suffering, but it was still evil.
[/quote]
We can touch on metaethics, but it doesn’t matter what people ‘think’ suffering is, and I didn’t touch on it. But suffering is what it is we can express ‘it’ but we can know it by example. I like to use the example of extremes. Child rape, for instance, isn’t wrong because we think it is or society thinks it’s a bad idea. It’s wrong because of freewill action causes one of the most grievous harms that can be done to conscious individual. There is no way to justify it. A ‘relativist’ is required by default explain how even the most grievous crimes against humanity can be morphed into something good by merely societal dictates. There is no way to do it. Just because slavery was accepted at one time, doesn’t mean it was ever right, for instance. A relativist must explain how societal acceptance of slavery, made it right. Since these are impossible, it’s very easy to see that morality at it’s core, is a separate entity that we are consciously aware of, but lack the expression to with language. It’s something that can only accurately be expressed by action.

I didn’t refer or discuss the various natures of suffering in it’s many forms, merely that which it’s over all effect is that of suffering vs. the absence of it. I am well aware of the receiving or causing of pain to achieve an over all positive effect, but such actions cannot be said to be intentionally causing suffering. A doctor doesn’t cut you open to make you worse, he does it to make you better even though you will suffer in the short term.

It’s also not ‘my’ definition, but the definition. or a paraphrasing of it.

Time isn’t really relevant. What doesn’t matter what happens in the future. If you rape and kill a baby, it’s still a morally evil act in the past, present and future.

Consensus isn’t necessary for something to be true. Many people live of a steady diet of falsehoods and deception and die at a ripe old age. That’s what logic is for. That which is true, is true because the facts necessitate their truth, not because people agree or disagree with it.

[quote]
Of course there is no logical reason for prioritizing non-suffering over suffering to begin with. That was an irrational leap anyway.

Edit: I should also point out that real choice, isn’t a rational concept to begin with. [/quote]

You’re over analyzing the whole suffering thing. It’s really not that complicated. If I am putting your dick in a meat grinder, it hurts, I intend it to hurt and I intend it to do irreparable damage to you for no good reason. If I am pulling barbed wire our of your skin, I am causing you pain, but I am trying to achieve a positive result where doing nothing or with holding that pain will do you harm. Suffering is many things. I am talking about an end result due to willful intent.

69

[quote]therajraj wrote:

Hate to break it to you, but if you used your human faculties to decide rape was wrong (as opposed to supernatural guidance), then you subscribe to secular morality.

I have hard time really seeing your hypothetical as a realistic danger. If most of the world used their logic, reasoning or moral intuition as their source for what’s good and evil, there would be no chance of things like rape becoming socially acceptable .

Okay, please provide an example of a situation where rape is right and good? Seriously, go nuts. I got to fucking hear this.

??

You must have trouble following an argument.

I’m not interested in discussing this subject with you based on your past comments.

To you atheists have scripture because Richard Dawkins wrote a few books on the topic (just one of many nonsensical statements relating to atheism).

[/quote]

You got me mixed up with somebody else. I don’t really know who Dick Dawkins is, nor did I say they follow any kind of scripture or some such non-sense.
I do know that most atheist logic, such as said ‘moral’ relativity is utter garbage and laughably bad in most cases. Here’s is the problem I find with most atheists, to eliminate the existence of Gad, you have re-write the entire way nature, science, man, and logic works to make ‘that’ work. Shoving square pegs into round holes where ever you see them. No ‘God’, guess that means morality is relative! Uh, no. No God? That must mean things can exist for no reason, in the absence of any evidence or even the slightest possible hypothetical example. No God? Everything is random! Horseshit.
There is only one atheist here who doesn’t do that. The rest of y’all are lost. Trying to justifying crap that doesn’t exist in the absense of any evidence, and you think were crazy? Even the dumbest theists at least have a book, yall have nothing, literally.
Whatever, good luck justifying murdering a village, because some people accept it, or slavery because at one time it was accepted.

70

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

I disagree, secular morality can provide a universal morality.

[/quote]

Okay, what is it? Give me universal secular morality.[/quote]

Moral relativism. Anything is good, when we decide it is. It’s circular, because it has to be.

Sandusky did a good thing, because he thought it was good. If everybody thought it was good, then it would be good.

71

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

I disagree, secular morality can provide a universal morality.

[/quote]

Okay, what is it? Give me universal secular morality.[/quote]

Human rights-

The crusades America leads to spread “freedom” and “democracy” whatever that means.

Granted, those are quasi religious in nature, but they are explicitly not religious, maybe precisely because they are so close to it.

72

[quote]pat wrote:<<< Do not underestimate logic, it is the master of all things in subjugation. [/quote]And there we have it boys n girls. Logic is the master of all things. The atheists win. Pat has just declared you victorious. He didn’t mean to, but he sure has. Pure intellectual idolatry right there. If only I could have gotten him to admit this the one thousand times I tried before he went on this pouting routine and refused to talk to me. Come on Pat. Knock it off already huh? You need my help. You just handed these pagans a 200 pound club to beat your brains out with.

73

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Logic cannot provide a universal morality. I believe in a universal morality.

[/quote]

Sure it can. Morality is it’s own entity. We cannot describe it but we can know it by example. It’s linked with demise, suffering and choice. Where choice is absent so is morality. Anything that causes more suffering than the lack is an immoral act.

Do not underestimate logic, it is the master of all things in subjugation. [/quote]

You’ve only moved the debate as to “what is suffering”. Not to mention the vast majority of the world disagrees with this reasoning, including myself. Dr. Eduard Wirths Can be said to have made choices that decreased total suffering, but it was still evil.
[/quote]
We can touch on metaethics, but it doesn’t matter what people ‘think’ suffering is, and I didn’t touch on it. But suffering is what it is we can express ‘it’ but we can know it by example. I like to use the example of extremes. Child rape, for instance, isn’t wrong because we think it is or society thinks it’s a bad idea. It’s wrong because of freewill action causes one of the most grievous harms that can be done to conscious individual. There is no way to justify it. A ‘relativist’ is required by default explain how even the most grievous crimes against humanity can be morphed into something good by merely societal dictates. There is no way to do it. Just because slavery was accepted at one time, doesn’t mean it was ever right, for instance. A relativist must explain how societal acceptance of slavery, made it right. Since these are impossible, it’s very easy to see that morality at it’s core, is a separate entity that we are consciously aware of, but lack the expression to with language. It’s something that can only accurately be expressed by action.

[/quote]
If it’s learned by experience its entirely relative. But, you aren’t providing reasoning behind anything yet. Why are prioritizing not “harming” over harming. Calling it harm is no more logical or insightful than calling it evil. But how are you arriving at these absolute morals? Why are yours the right ones? And most importantly, what are they? You haven’t specified them in absolute terms yet.

so, which is it? Which way are you looking at it? You didn’t address the question.

But that isn’t true. In your definition you are labeling choices as compared to their alternatives. If you don’t rape a child, you start WW3.

Or, less extremely, lets say you have a train headed towards 3 people and you have the opportunity to switch the track to aim it towards 2. Lets say you pull the lever and intentionally send a train at 2 people knowingly sending them to their death. But, maybe you, not knowing the tracks in the area didn’t see the third empty track the train was actually headed down. Or maybe, though you chose the lesser of 2 “hurts” (which you haven’t really defined) you did it because you were trying to kill the group of 2 out of hate. Or maybe the group of 2 is a couple of kids where the group of 3 turns out to be a group of 80 year old cancer patients.

What examples have taught you that, and why are your examples the right ones?

Fine, but you have to logically show your opinion to be the right one then. You haven’t. I’ve been pointing out the flexibility of your definition of morality. You haven’t codified outside of opinion yet.

[quote]

[quote]

Of course there is no logical reason for prioritizing non-suffering over suffering to begin with. That was an irrational leap anyway.

Edit: I should also point out that real choice, isn’t a rational concept to begin with. [/quote]

You’re over analyzing the whole suffering thing. It’s really not that complicated. If I am putting your dick in a meat grinder, it hurts, I intend it to hurt and I intend it to do irreparable damage to you for no good reason. If I am pulling barbed wire our of your skin, I am causing you pain, but I am trying to achieve a positive result where doing nothing or with holding that pain will do you harm. Suffering is many things. I am talking about an end result due to willful intent.[/quote]

Who decides what a good reason is? Who decides what positive is?

All of that can be argued. I can even think of scenarios for each one that I would disagree that it was bad myself.

But again, you are just stating these things, you aren’t logically deriving them. You are essentially say “we all just know it”. That isn’t arriving at your beliefs by logic. Where is the logical process? Quit simply applying labels and show your work.

74

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

I disagree, secular morality can provide a universal morality.

[/quote]

Okay, what is it? Give me universal secular morality.[/quote]

Moral relativism. Anything is good, when we decide it is. It’s circular, because it has to be.

Sandusky did a good thing, because he thought it was good. If everybody thought it was good, then it would be good.[/quote]

Moral Secularity and moral relativism aren’t the same thing.

75

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

I disagree, secular morality can provide a universal morality.

[/quote]

Okay, what is it? Give me universal secular morality.[/quote]

Human rights-

The crusades America leads to spread “freedom” and “democracy” whatever that means.

Granted, those are quasi religious in nature, but they are explicitly not religious, maybe precisely because they are so close to it. [/quote]

Yeah, Americans can’t even agree on what the codified rights spelled out in the constitution actually mean. I’m sure there is universal consensus though.

But for shits and giggles, justify human rights, secularly.

76

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

I disagree, secular morality can provide a universal morality.

[/quote]

Okay, what is it? Give me universal secular morality.[/quote]

Moral relativism. Anything is good, when we decide it is. It’s circular, because it has to be.

Sandusky did a good thing, because he thought it was good. If everybody thought it was good, then it would be good.[/quote]

Moral Secularity and moral relativism aren’t the same thing.[/quote]

Oh, but they are.

77

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

I disagree, secular morality can provide a universal morality.

[/quote]

Okay, what is it? Give me universal secular morality.[/quote]

Human rights-

The crusades America leads to spread “freedom” and “democracy” whatever that means.

Granted, those are quasi religious in nature, but they are explicitly not religious, maybe precisely because they are so close to it. [/quote]

Yeah, Americans can’t even agree on what the codified rights spelled out in the constitution actually mean. I’m sure there is universal consensus though.

But for shits and giggles, justify human rights, secularly.[/quote]

I do not have to.

I just pointed out that they are considered top be universal and that there even is apprently a cross cultural consensus that they are.

Sure, there are sectarian disputes, but that is also true for any truly religious movement.

78

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

I disagree, secular morality can provide a universal morality.

Listen, it appears you are interested in performing mental gymnastics to avoid the obvious truth.

If a slave trader identifies himself as part of a religion and refers to a holy book (in his eyes) to decide what is right and wrong my “brand of morality” is not to blame. His source of morality was the bible, and the bible clearly condones slavery. It’s an undeniable fact.

[/quote]

No mental gymnastics. I’m saying his source of morality is himself. And further that your source of morality (societal consent) also approved it.

I can identify myself as an atheist and kill someone, but that doesn’t mean that atheism caused it.

I wasn’t aware that the Bible condoned slavery. But it’s especially ironic, because Christians are also the ones that pushed abolition.

For your point to be true, the slave trader would have need to not become a slave trader if it wasn’t for the Bible, and you know that’s a load of crap.[/quote]

If you hold the Christian worldview you get your morals from Christianity.

Atheism is not a worldview, so your comparison doesn’t work.

I don’t understand what the last sentence of your post is trying to say.

79

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

Hate to break it to you, but if you used your human faculties to decide rape was wrong (as opposed to supernatural guidance), then you subscribe to secular morality.

I have hard time really seeing your hypothetical as a realistic danger. If most of the world used their logic, reasoning or moral intuition as their source for what’s good and evil, there would be no chance of things like rape becoming socially acceptable .

Okay, please provide an example of a situation where rape is right and good? Seriously, go nuts. I got to fucking hear this.

??

You must have trouble following an argument.

I’m not interested in discussing this subject with you based on your past comments.

To you atheists have scripture because Richard Dawkins wrote a few books on the topic (just one of many nonsensical statements relating to atheism).

[/quote]

You got me mixed up with somebody else. I don’t really know who Dick Dawkins is, nor did I say they follow any kind of scripture or some such non-sense.
I do know that most atheist logic, such as said ‘moral’ relativity is utter garbage and laughably bad in most cases. Here’s is the problem I find with most atheists, to eliminate the existence of Gad, you have re-write the entire way nature, science, man, and logic works to make ‘that’ work. Shoving square pegs into round holes where ever you see them. No ‘God’, guess that means morality is relative! Uh, no. No God? That must mean things can exist for no reason, in the absence of any evidence or even the slightest possible hypothetical example. No God? Everything is random! Horseshit.
There is only one atheist here who doesn’t do that. The rest of y’all are lost. Trying to justifying crap that doesn’t exist in the absense of any evidence, and you think were crazy? Even the dumbest theists at least have a book, yall have nothing, literally.
Whatever, good luck justifying murdering a village, because some people accept it, or slavery because at one time it was accepted.
[/quote]

You can be a moral secularist and not a moral relativist.

I don’t believe in cultural moral relativism.

80

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

I disagree, secular morality can provide a universal morality.

[/quote]

Okay, what is it? Give me universal secular morality.[/quote]

Human rights-

The crusades America leads to spread “freedom” and “democracy” whatever that means.

Granted, those are quasi religious in nature, but they are explicitly not religious, maybe precisely because they are so close to it. [/quote]

Yeah, Americans can’t even agree on what the codified rights spelled out in the constitution actually mean. I’m sure there is universal consensus though.

But for shits and giggles, justify human rights, secularly.[/quote]

I do not have to.

I just pointed out that they are considered top be universal and that there even is apprently a cross cultural consensus that they are.

Sure, there are sectarian disputes, but that is also true for any truly religious movement.[/quote]

Uh, there are significant portions of the world that don’t agree with even the basic ones.

And you, you don’t have to justify them. The consensus is that god gave them to us, because its entirely illogical.

And again, the religious claim to morality doesn’t require consensus of any kind, so I don’t know why you bring it up. Consensus can’t effect absolute morality by definition.