I have demonstrated humans can establish a moral and ethics system grounded on secular moral absolutes above.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Aug 30, 2019 2:51 pmI think that's pretty obviously not true. I've taken your word for this definition, and the word of other Atheists. If you lied, it's not my fault. I took your word.
What's interesting, though, is that you can't seem to connect your Atheism to any moral premises or conclusions. That fact speaks for itself.
You have not counter that.
You thought the golden rule originated from the Bible but it is not.
You are stuck with the wrong premise humans do not progress from how God has created them some 6000 years[?] ago.Actually, this is categorically untrue, so far as historians, archaeologists and anthropologists are concerned. There is no evidence of any ancient culture that was not religious.[A]theism [your preference not mine] is a default and had existed since the first emergence of humans.
It depend on how you defined what is religion.
There is no evidence the early humans, 200,000 years ago were religious in any semblance of what is defined as religion 10,000 years ago and the present.
However it is a fact religion has evolved from primitive religions to polytheism then to monotheism with non-theistic religions emerging in parallel, e.g. Buddhism, Jainism and others.
Currently there is a rising trend of people moving from theistic religions to non-theistic religions and non-theism.
- According to the 2012 WIN/Gallup International Survey, the number of atheists is on the rise across the world, with religiosity generally declining. -wiki
Rieke Havertz (2012-08-15). "Atheism on the rise around the globe". CSMonitor.com. Retrieved 2014-01-06.
I have stated the secular absolute moral rules come in degrees of criticalness.(corrections?)Your claim '[an]Atheist cannot establish absolute moral rules' is false.
If that's so, then you can easily prove it. Create a valid syllogism, correct in form, to show that this is so.
Here: I'll make it as easy for you as it can get.
Premise 1: The world is a product of impersonal, unintentional forces. (A necessary truism, if Atheism is also true.)
Conclusion: Therefore, an Atheist cannot morally be a pedophile. (I'm surmising that any moral agent should regard that act as evil, and that you're such a moral agent. Fair enough?)
Just fill in premise 2, and you've disproved me with final certainty. Atheism has then rationalized an evil act as "evil."
I have already provided the syllogism [not deductive but inferential] to justify a secular moral absolute, i.e. an ideal as a guide.
You have not been able to prove me wrong nor that is impractical for any utility in a moral perspective.
Your premise 1 is to rigid.
I don't agree with your hidden assumption, the world is created by a God.
My proposition is the world and reality is co-created by humans on the basis of intersubjective consensus.
Therefore your premise 1 is a non-starter, thus the rest of the argument.