For theists maybe, atheists who proclaim morality follow the generally pc trend. e.g. Shaw was very much in favor of Stalin's efforts to eliminate undesirables.
Atheism isn't perfect, but at least by it's very nature, it's adaptable to new ideas. Religion has an awful track record of preventing atrocities and is often the cause of them. Unfortunately, I have. I don't get your point.
No, that is an unsupported statement, not evidence. This is where we began, remember? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That can only mean that atheism would be worse, since the planet is already over populated. Why would you think that something is right or wrong, or perfect or imperfect? Those are just abstract concepts, based on your perception of what you believe it ought to be.:shrug:
And I think you need to get your tongue re-sharpened. Toots. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Are you saying philosophers are politically incorrect?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Moi? Very probably if I gave it any thought. In fact more than probably. The point I was (trying) making was, since morality is based on judgement then one can claim to be moral if one's judgement decides being PC isn't a worthwhile proposition. No? And: "May" doesn't mean "does". IMRHO morality does not mean, or include, PC.
You mean your morality is better than someone else's (ie if you think something is right/wrong, it MUST be?). Ah.
Did I say that? Nope I just pointed out the definition of morality I found said that morality is based upon judgement. Presumably one's own otherwise it wouldn't be judgement so much as acquiescence. FWIW my morality is better than anyone else's for me, IMO.
Using definitions from the web: (I hate it when you do this Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! . Thanks. Clank, whirr. AGAIN!) a position or opinion reached after consideration the cognitive process of reaching a decision or drawing conclusions Both of which express it well it enough for me.
Back pain, disease, all the medical problems we can get, I don't think these measures of imperfection are that abstract.
That doesn't mean you should kill everyone. In fact, logical thought says that if you kill someone, then others will follow, and people will try to kill you. Thus, assuming a person or creature is interested in its own self preservation, it will not kill. Similarly, cooperation and sharing arise even when everyone is completely selfish. Its like egoism that holds that every action is selfishly motivated. Even donating to charity is done for a persons own benefit, the joy they feel at helping someone else. for example, 2 guys are on a plot of land and neither cares at all about the other. Each is only interested in his own gain and has absolutely no sympathy compassion or respect for the other. Now you would say that they would both kill each other out of greed for the land. Actually though, they will share it, for each knows that if he doesnt share it will start a conflict which jeopardizes his safety. All morals can be deduced through logic, egoism, and instinct. No sky fairy needed.
Far from it, read on; Except God is surely not an atheist, he must know he exists. Except atheists are not the sole perpertrators of such crimes as murder. So where can a causal link to morality be found? Was there total immorality before religion? Or, is religious morality merely common sense and co-operative ideology with a twist of divine retribution?
Like I said, if humans are a social animal, a cooperatove society is a given; so why any concept of right and wrong?
