you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]magnora7 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (4 children)

The concept of "objective morality" is incoherent without religion, and Abrahamic monotheism in particular.

So you think all non-religious people are inherently evil? You hate your fellow man because they don't believe in the same stories you do? Sounds like your sense of morality was hijacked by religion

[–]PeddaKondappa 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

So you think all non-religious people are inherently evil?

No, but I think all non-religious people are incapable of articulating why their moral beliefs are objectively true, and other moral beliefs are objectively false. As a result, I believe that non-religious people will more easily fall for propaganda pushed by elites due to a lack of grounding in objective moral truths, resulting in rapid shifts in the moral landscape of society. For example, just a few decades ago the very concept of "gay marriage" was viewed as totally aberrant by average people, and the only people who supported this were some deviants who also supported abolishing all age of consent laws (like the sodomite French "intellectual" Michel Foucault). But now, within my own lifetime, virtually all normies in the West have come to accept gay marriage as not only acceptable, but a "human right" that must be upheld my violent force if necessary. Regardless of what you think about such a massive shift in morality, do you think a highly religious society would have shifted their morals so easily?

This not mean, however, that all religious people are "good people" or that all non-religious people are "bad people." Rather, my point is that religious people can argue for the objectivity of their moral beliefs, and thus not be swept up by the zeitgeist. That's why the only people in the West who still have a strong moral code that is resistant to elite propaganda are ultra-traditional religious communities, like the Amish and Mennonites. Their morality is objective and unchanging, not subjective or relativistic, and does not change according to the whims and fancies of the time. And the ultimate basis of their steadfast morality is the creed of Monotheism, of a singular, eternal, divine Creator whose Word is coterminous with Natural Law. (Note that I am not even a Christian, so do not interpret my statements as some kind of Christian propaganda)

[–][deleted]  (2 children)

[deleted]

    [–]PeddaKondappa 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

    Not an argument. The notion of an "invisible sky god" like Zeus or Indra is purely pagan as a concept, and has nothing to do with the refined Monotheism developed by great philosophers like Plato, Avicenna and Thomas Aquinas (whose IQs are probably three standard deviations above yours). If you understand logic and the principle of causality, then the necessary existence of a Supreme God becomes self-evident, and this God cannot be described as a "man in the sky" or any other nonsensical pagan or atheist description.

    [–]JasonCarswell 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

    Your argument is not valid either. Resorting to insults doesn't win points. You have yet to relay logic to morality via Monotheism.

    God is not self evident - at all. God is a figment of your imagination and a social virus.

    The Epicurean paradox still holds up...

    Either God cares but is impotent to help us all or God is all powerful but doesn't give a shit.

    Life and fortune is random. God is supremely absent.