99Percent

I am having a strong moral conviction that tells me to kill you as slowly and painfully as possible.

Your "moral" conviction is irrational. You want to initiate violence. It is therefore morally wrong.

Koyaanisqatsi

Has anybody beside myself noticed the duality always employed by cult members regarding objectivity?

Whenever they attack atheism through our alleged lack of "morality," objectivity is always the foundation, claiming that without God there is no objective "anchor" to establish morality (thus erroneous points like the one nu brings up).

Whenever they attack logic and/or reasoning it is always from a standpoint of pure subjectivity, claiming that what is correct for one thing is not necessarily correct for another thing and one's subjective beliefs are all that are necessary to prove God exists.

Without a god there is no objective reality to establish an equally objective morality.

We don't have to prove a god exists, because it isn't possible to prove anything exists outside of your own mind.

God is the most subjectively objective object in non-existence!

Bill Snedden

My post was intended to indicate my belief that each of us has a responsibility to decide for ourselves what constitutes right & wrong and that our own enlightened self-interest should serve as the standard by which we make this determination. However, this certainly can't be determined in a vacuum. As John Donne said, "No man is an island." This is even more true today than it was in Donne's time.

Whatever would make you believe that it was in your own self-interest to kill someone you don't even know? As 99Percent pointed out, it certainly doesn't seem rational.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

HelenM

If they are quoting regularly from equip.org it seems to me that 'equip.org' is, de facto, Moral Authority from On High to them

Sounds like idolatry...

love
Helen

Darwin's Finch

I've noticed the same thing, Koy. Of course, the theist's insistence that (a) there be an objective morality and (b) that one not pursue this insistence into areas where such thinking would invalidate the basis of such a morality (e.g., their utter inability to demonstrate the existence of their god(s)) seem to me like two sides of the same coin. In both cases, what the believer seeks is an escape from the uncertainty of not "knowing". Uncertainty and <gasp> the possibility of being wrong are intolerable to some people; they need a manual to tell them what to do because, otherwise, they just might have to think.

Of course, one can paint theists with too broad a brush. I have known a number of theists who were genuinely concerned and thoughtful about moral issues, but these people, without exception, were rather liberal in their theology. The closer one toes the line of, say, Biblical literalism the greater the tendency of the individual to seek easy answers, in short to avoid thinking.

Alonzo Fyfe

Well, since the theist's "moral authority" does not exist, if we "need" it, we have a significant problem.

The fact of the matter is that the theist does not provide us with the moral authority they think they do. Instead, what they provide us with is the bigotry and prejudice of a band of barbarian tribal demagogues.

Even if we need an ultimate moral authority, it is still legitimate to ask whether that authority should be the bigoted leaders of a group of primative barbarian tribes.