Here we go.
+You have failed to grasp the point you’re arguing against. The original speaker was not talking about a final end to moral arguments, but an end to the phenomenon of moral arguments hitting a wall when one side of the debate chooses to bring up the argument of “cause god says so”, which is not a very constructive response really. As for the “lack of moral objectivity” - I don’t get it. Are youChristianhristian morals are objective and atheist morals aren’t
I have not failed to grasp anything. It looks as though you failed to grasp what I was saying. The point I’m imaking is that moral arguements all stem from something, be it religion, culture, or tradition. But the values and laws of western culture stem from judeo-Christian principals. It is only through an objective third party (God) that we can have an objective moral code. Atheism and moral objectivity cannot coexist in logical thought. So in an Atheistic society there may not be a “wall”, but that’s only because no one can say with any degree of certainty why ANYTHING should be wrong. Can you, from an Atheistic stand point prove ANY moral law?
+“And on the basis of what perverse reading of Darwin do you claim that his ideas cadefensenstrued as a defence for Nazi ideals? Finally, the last sentence of your statement is not a simplified recap of the paragraph as it claims to be, but a statement of belief which you have not yet backed up at all.”
Darwin taught that all life evolved through natural sellection, the strong destroy the weak and thus improve the species. Morality cannot factor into that concept logically, or with any objective reason. The Nazis simply believed they were superior and destroyed the jews based on their supremacy
The last statement I made is simple. Where would the American civil rights movement be without Lincolns words “all men were created equal”?
Inate equality is a moral concept and cannot be proven or argued with an Atheistic philosophy.
+“I quote: “Is that wrong? If yes: Why? If not then all hope for civiliztion is lost.” Forgive me if I do not bow.”
Cute, but You're avoiding the question.
+“As far as I’m concerned this statement does not deserve a response. But that the Hell, I’m feeling frisky. Why should we pay for the upkeep of a religious apparatus which contributes onlyng to our lives and serves ounly to promote outdated dogmatic taboos, self-righteousness and, apparently, muddled thinking (see above)? Because it doesn’t really make a difference to the economy! Hell, while we’re at it, why don’t we spell-checkera bit and buy Defender a decent spellchecker. After all, it’s not like it would damage the economy, right?”
When's the last time you had to pay to upkeep a religious organization? You cannot raise the flaws of religious organizations without acknowledging the good: Feeding homeless, building homes, and anti-substence abuse programs are just a few of the many benefits there are to faith based groups.
Logically in order for you to 1) judge their dogma (morality) and 2) claim they are self-righteous, you would have to believe you were in a position of moral or intellectual superiority. This is more than a little hypocritical.
Spell-checkers are free, and are included with most operating systems, or you can find them online as well. I didn't use one because I didn't have time. I'm not native to English, but that's a moot point and so is yours. Straw men anyone?
~Dan