Saying it’s NOT true over and over again doesn’t make it false either. You have my quote. Do something about it.[/quote]
Already did, Einstein - it’s clear Hitler used Christianity to his ends, but saw himself as the descendant of paganism and ancient mythologies. Were he a Christian, he wouldn’t have decreed the abolition of Christian customs in favor of ones promoting himself (and other pagan customs).
Read up. Hitler’s reference to the “Almighty Creator” doesn’t refute the fact that Hitler saw himself as something other than a Christian.[/quote]
This is just another case of “no true Scotsmen”. You don’t like Hitler’s views on what Christianity is and is not, therefore he is not a real Christian. Literally every single branch of Christianity thinks that their branch is the one, true Christianity. So forgive me if I’m unimpressed by your insistent dismissal of Hitler as a real Christian.
Also, that poem is fake.
Once again, I agree that Hitler used Christianity as propaganda. My point is that using the holocaust as and argument against moral nihilism is as fallacious as saying Christian morals are wrong because Hitler claimed to be a Christian.
A “moral” is based upon universality, else it isn’t a moral. In a purely secular arrangement, no such universality. Oh, you can want it to be so, but there is no basis for it. And what is a moral on Tuesday can be ruled out by a different moral on Wednesday, and you have no basis for saying the change was wrong.
Secular moral systems require you to analyze and assess complex scenarios. You base your morals on evidence and the consequences of those actions. You start with very basic things like life is preferable to death and you build. When we talk about morals we’re really talking about rules of thumb and general guidelines, and assessing each situation individually.[/quote]
Oh, and I missed this the first time. You’ve made my point for me. Morals, by their nature, are not “rules of thumb” or “guidelines” - they are “morals”. Admitting that in a secular system that “morals” are situationally adjustable guidelines is precisely my point, and, ipsi facto, they ain’t morals.
I do not think morality changes across cultures. Just because a society says female genital mutilation is good doesn’t mean it’s good. It’s still wrong.[/quote]
Wait, what?! How could you possibly say this? Obviously your opinion on genital mutilation hasn’t been agreed upon by everyone. In other words, it’s just your opinion. And they have a different one. You’d have to propose the existence of something outside of human whim, cultural/environmental adaption, that exists as a standard for the behavior of intelligent self-conscious beings, regardless of how disobedient man is with respect to it…In other words, ‘evil exists.’ Can’t be falsified. That might not be theism, but it’s a religious faith.
A “moral” is based upon universality, else it isn’t a moral.[/quote]
Murder is wrong. Is that a universally moral truth?
In a purely secular arrangement, no such universality. Oh, you can want it to be so, but there is no basis for it. And what is a moral on Tuesday can be ruled out by a different moral on Wednesday, and you have no basis for saying the change was wrong.[/quote]
I addressed your criticism, you are just choosing to ignore my points.
Secular moral systems require you to analyze and assess complex scenarios. You base your morals on evidence and the consequences of those actions. You start with very basic things like life is preferable to death and you build. When we talk about morals we’re really talking about rules of thumb and general guidelines, and assessing each situation individually.[/quote]
Oh, and I missed this the first time. You’ve made my point for me. Morals, by their nature, are not “rules of thumb” or “guidelines” - they are “morals”. Admitting that in a secular system that “morals” are situationally adjustable guidelines is precisely my point, and, ipsi facto, they ain’t morals.[/quote]
And yet you ignored the part where I said we need to assess each situation individually.
Secular moral systems require you to analyze and assess complex scenarios. You base your morals on evidence and the consequences of those actions. You start with very basic things like life is preferable to death and you build. When we talk about morals we’re really talking about rules of thumb and general guidelines, and assessing each situation individually.[/quote]
Oh, and I missed this the first time. You’ve made my point for me. Morals, by their nature, are not “rules of thumb” or “guidelines” - they are “morals”. Admitting that in a secular system that “morals” are situationally adjustable guidelines is precisely my point, and, ipsi facto, they ain’t morals.[/quote]
And yet you ignored the part where I said we need to assess each situation individually.[/quote]
Apparently ‘we’ have. The genital mutilators arrived at a different opinion than your own.
I do not think morality changes across cultures. Just because a society says female genital mutilation is good doesn’t mean it’s good. It’s still wrong.[/quote]
Wait, what?! How could you possibly say this? Obviously your opinion on genital mutilation hasn’t been agreed upon by everyone. In other words, it’s just your opinion. And they have a different one. You’d have to propose the existence of something outside of human whim, cultural/environmental adaption, that exists as a standard for the behavior of intelligent self-conscious beings, regardless of how disobedient man is with respect to it…In other words, ‘evil exists.’ Can’t be falsified. That might not be theism, but it’s a religious faith.[/quote]
I addressed this.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
because by anything by which we would consider moral, we can demonstrate running around slaughtering people does not lead to a positive result for the societies that allow this or the people being slaughtered. [/quote]
A “moral” is based upon universality, else it isn’t a moral.[/quote]
Murder is wrong. Is that a universally moral truth?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
In a purely secular arrangement, no such universality. Oh, you can want it to be so, but there is no basis for it. And what is a moral on Tuesday can be ruled out by a different moral on Wednesday, and you have no basis for saying the change was wrong.[/quote]
I addressed your criticism, you are just choosing to ignore my points.
I do not think morality changes across cultures. Just because a society says female genital mutilation is good doesn’t mean it’s good. It’s still wrong.[/quote]
Wait, what?! How could you possibly say this? Obviously your opinion on genital mutilation hasn’t been agreed upon by everyone. In other words, it’s just your opinion. And they have a different one. You’d have to propose the existence of something outside of human whim, cultural/environmental adaption, that exists as a standard for the behavior of intelligent self-conscious beings, regardless of how disobedient man is with respect to it…In other words, ‘evil exists.’ Can’t be falsified. That might not be theism, but it’s a religious faith.[/quote]
I addressed this.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
because by anything by which we would consider moral, we can demonstrate running around slaughtering people does not lead to a positive result for the societies that allow this or the people being slaughtered. [/quote]
[/quote]
Obviously not everyone has accepted your first principles. That society is the primary concern is your opinion. Your preference.
I do not think morality changes across cultures. Just because a society says female genital mutilation is good doesn’t mean it’s good. It’s still wrong.[/quote]
Wait, what?! How could you possibly say this? Obviously your opinion on genital mutilation hasn’t been agreed upon by everyone. In other words, it’s just your opinion. And they have a different one. You’d have to propose the existence of something outside of human whim, cultural/environmental adaption, that exists as a standard for the behavior of intelligent self-conscious beings, regardless of how disobedient man is with respect to it…In other words, ‘evil exists.’ Can’t be falsified. That might not be theism, but it’s a religious faith.[/quote]
I addressed this.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
because by anything by which we would consider moral, we can demonstrate running around slaughtering people does not lead to a positive result for the societies that allow this or the people being slaughtered. [/quote]
[/quote]
Obviously not everyone has accepted your first principles. That society is the primary concern is your opinion. You preference.[/quote]
And not everyone holds my position. Some people are moral relativists and some believe morals are handed down from god.
Murder is wrong. Is that a universally moral truth?[/quote]
Not in a secular arrangement, no. You have no basis to say so. You may want it to be, but it isn’t. You don’t have a measuring stick beyond ordinary opinion by which to claim that.
Not in a secular arrangement, no. You have no basis to say so. You may want it to be, but it isn’t. You don’t have a measuring stick beyond ordinary opinion by which to claim that. [/quote]
I asked YOU if YOU think killing is wrong is universally moral, not how it applies to a secular moral system in your mind
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
No, I didn’t - you basically agreed with me.[/quote]
I already explained what the basis for calling something moral is in a secular moral system.
I asked YOU if YOU think killing is wrong is universally moral, not how it applies to a secular moral system in your mind[/quote]
Yes, I do - but I believe the universality of that moral is a function of natural rights rooted in something distinctly non-secular.
Doesn’t matter what you want to call it - it definitionally is not a moral if it isn’t universal and is subject to situational modification. A guideline is not a rule.
