Atheism - Paradox

[PennitentMan]

When we get down to it, faith is the basis for everyone, not just Theists. In real life, you have to make a value judgment for actions. That value is based on something you cannot prove beyond a doubt, therefore you base it on faith.

It’s two kinds of faith. One is based on tangible things and easy concepts, like I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. Based on past evidence and scientific knowledge, your faith would be well placed.
Faith choices that we make during the course of our lives, work around the same idea. Based on past experiences, and facts, faith can be well placed or ill placed in certain ideas or items or people. The less historical facts and data you have to go on the less likely it is that four faith is well placed.

If you transfer this to Christianity and their requirement for faith, you have to ask yourself what it’s based on…and there are many debates going on around the historicity of Jesus, the validity of the bible, etc…

So is a lack of one.

yes, but I’m not the one claiming faith in, or anything by or through this entity. As an Atheists I’m not claiming that there is no god, I’m claiming that I have no faith in a god. There is a difference.

It amazes me that people who appreciate science and reason so much would come to the conclusion that there is no meaning to the order that they see or nothing which gave them the ability to see that order in the first place. Instead, they loop around into their own causal framework, which is far more easier to disprove as the creator of the universe.

Who said that there is no meaning or order? Of course there is. Nature follows rules that we have quantified by physics. It’s not random, at all, but follows well defined steps. We just don’t attribute the steps and order as originated by a god.

AND, this brought my total posts to a cool 1,000! Yeah!

 

[humble_in_doubt]

But Christopher Hitchens is comparing himself/atheists to Christians, i.e., Christian morality. So whether you agree with that morality or not is of no import (because that was not relevant to the statement he made).

Edit: This is the problem with moral relativism. You get to decide what’s moral.

logically speaking … just because someone creates a laundry list of rules that most people agree on; and stamps it with the name of a religion, it doesn’t validate that religion. In other words it doesn’t make the fictitious tales of that religion any less fictitious or mythological (if indeed they’re truly fictitious and mythological). What it probably does, however, is create a false perception of dependence.

I had a discussion with a buddy the other day who said I don’t look at things at objectively enough. However, it seems to me his argument was illogical. IMO only truth is objective. For instance if I know I’m not color blind, and if I say “the grass is green” (meaning of course green as defined by the English language); and someone else says the grass is black – they’re wrong aren’t they?

When we say the truth is always subjective (and that’s the only way to view things objectively) we run into logical folly & all sorts of absurdities. However, morality has changed throughout the course of history (even Christian history). So morality itself cannot be logically viewed as timeless (or “objective”) truth.

For instance, we might say killing is wrong … but in fact it’s not always wrong is it? What about self-defense, military conflict, etc. We can only say killing always ends someones life – and since most people prefer to live, it causes harm; and harm is generally wrong. Of course we further refine the word killing into sub-types like murder (a word that inherently defines an objective wrong – so the statement that murder is always wrong is viewed as objectively true). However, murder is only a word used to describe under what circumstances killing is wrong. In the 12th century it was perfectly acceptable to burn heretics at the stake, but today that would offend every sense of liberty, humanity, and justice we know. In other words back then burning heretics at the stake wasn’t murder, but today it is. So while we can say murder is always wrong – we don’t have an objective timeless definition for murder.

This all might sound like semantics – but it’s not. The simple point is there’s no such thing as objective morality – there never has been. Indeed most people have a nostalgia for a past that never really existed; and in my experience it’s always those who think they have it the most figured out who have the most jumbled logic.

The only real sustainable morality (if that’s even a proper word for it) is the morality we create through logic; and build upon through never ending inquiry. I can’t tell you whether or not there’s some sort of higher power out there – or perhaps even a lower power. What I can say is the claims of religion can’t withstand rational scrutiny; although for many they do, so my own opinion is just that – an opinion. But what I can say is there’s no such thing as objective morality, because objective truth tells me otherwise. Morality has always been defined and redefined by man; sometimes under the guise of a deity.

Thou shall not murder – well god what is murder? It wasn’t stoning the impure to death 3,000 years ago, it wasn’t burning heretics at the stake 1,600 years ago for mere dissent, it wasn’t even killing an escaping slave less than 200 years ago – but it’s all these things today (at least in western society). Some might say god gave us these virtues but it’s for us to figure out how to apply them (and our understanding of god’s laws evolves as our intellectual or spiritual capacity grows). But seriously – that sort of abstract and intangible idea has no real value. That’s as illogical as saying the CC is our infallible guide to the word of god, even though at one point in history it interpreted scripture as revealing a geocentric cosmology (that today we conclusively know is wrong).

My favorite quote by any religious man comes from Martin Luther, who admitted “reason is the whore of the devil” and an enemy to faith … indeed it is!

 

[authenticity]

It’s two kinds of faith. One is based on tangible things and easy concepts, like I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow.
Based on past evidence and scientific knowledge, your faith would be well placed.

Interesting that you used that phrase about the sun rising… the sun didn’t rise today, nor will it rise tomorrow. I’m just poking at you, though.

The Church doesn’t deny that kind of ‘faith’. It is all for the development of humanity from a scientific standpoint.

I think the real distinction is about the nature of man: that is, all human beings are immeasurably valuable. It doesn’t matter how intelligent they are, what they look like, what culture they are from, how much they make, etc.

Empiricism doesn’t unequivocally come to the same conclusion. Humans are essentially a highly evolved animal. They can be treated just like animals: bred the way animals are bred, slaughtered the way animals are slaughtered. You can rationalize that it’s best that people have liberty, but you can rationalize the other way as well. When reason is put before faith, human value becomes a variable.

Faith choices that we make during the course of our lives, work around the same idea. Based on past experiences, and facts, faith can be well placed or ill placed in certain ideas or items or people. The less historical facts and data you have to go on the less likely it is that four faith is well placed.

I think its the other way around. Where you place your faith determines how you interpret your experiences, what choices you make, what facts are most apparent to you. God doesn’t change and the entire point of Christianity is that faith in anything less than God is an error.

2 Corinthians 10:5-6
We destroy arguments and every pretension raising itself against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive in obedience to Christ, and we are ready to punish every disobedience, once your obedience is complete.In other words, every idea, experience, person is rendered to the Absolute and according to the Absolute as man-- Christ.

If you transfer this to Christianity and their requirement for faith, you have to ask yourself what it’s based on…and there are many debates going on around the historicity of Jesus, the validity of the bible, etc…

It’s based on tradition. And when I say tradition I don’t simply mean what people have done for a long time, so that makes it right and we should do it. I mean the trans-substantiation of the finite to the infinite, the mystery of Christ.

yes, but I’m not the one claiming faith in, or anything by or through this entity. As an Atheists I’m not claiming that there is no god, I’m claiming that I have no faith in a god. There is a difference.

If you said, “I don’t know if God exists,” that would be agnosticism. Atheism, on the other hand, says, “I know God does not exist.”

That statement is based on an assumption you are making-- an axiom you accept a priori– and that is a point of faith.

From what you’ve said, you put your faith in the temporal, tangible world the you exist in, which you assume springs up out of nothing without a creator. That leaves a void where God once stood. That void is filled by your rationalizations, your intellect. So, by default, the self creates the world. What you know of it, what you find valuable, what you think is right, it is entirely up to you.

The problem is that the real world doesn’t exist for your sake. It doesn’t follow your rules. If you want my opinion, I don’t think you like the rules. Your hoping science can find a way to bend them or even break them. To me, this is a misuse of reason. It pits humanity versus God, instead of humanity being made in the image of God.

Who said that there is no meaning or order? Of course there is. Nature follows rules that we have quantified by physics. It’s not random, at all, but follows well defined steps. We just don’t attribute the steps and order as originated by a god.

Did you design those rules? How about the scientists that discovered those rules? If it did not originate with God, then why?

AND, this brought my total posts to a cool 1,000! Yeah!

Congratulations.

 

[jam070406]

logically speaking … just because someone creates a laundry list of rules that most people agree on; and stamps it with the name of a religion, it doesn’t validate that religion. In other words it doesn’t make the fictitious tales of that religion any less fictitious or mythological (if indeed they’re truly fictitious and mythological). What it probably does, however, is create a false perception of dependence.

I had a discussion with a buddy the other day who said I don’t look at things at objectively enough. However, it seems to me his argument was illogical. IMO only truth is objective. For instance if I know I’m not color blind, and if I say “the grass is green” (meaning of course green as defined by the English language); and someone else says the grass is black – they’re wrong aren’t they?

When we say the truth is always subjective (and that’s the only way to view things objectively) we run into logical folly & all sorts of absurdities. However, morality has changed throughout the course of history (even Christian history). So morality itself cannot be logically viewed as timeless (or “objective”) truth.

For instance, we might say killing is wrong … but in fact it’s not always wrong is it? What about self-defense, military conflict, etc. We can only say killing always ends someones life – and since most people prefer to live, it causes harm; and harm is generally wrong. Of course we further refine the word killing into sub-types like murder (a word that inherently defines an objective wrong – so the statement that murder is always wrong is viewed as objectively true). However, murder is only a word used to describe under what circumstances killing is wrong. In the 12th century it was perfectly acceptable to burn heretics at the stake, but today that would offend every sense of liberty, humanity, and justice we know. In other words back then burning heretics at the stake wasn’t murder, but today it is. So while we can say murder is always wrong – we don’t have an objective timeless definition for murder.

This all might sound like semantics – but it’s not. The simple point is there’s no such thing as objective morality – there never has been. Indeed most people have a nostalgia for a past that never really existed; and in my experience it’s always those who think they have it the most figured out who have the most jumbled logic.

The only real sustainable morality (if that’s even a proper word for it) is the morality we create through logic; and build upon through never ending inquiry. I can’t tell you whether or not there’s some sort of higher power out there – or perhaps even a lower power. What I can say is the claims of religion can’t withstand rational scrutiny; although for many they do, so my own opinion is just that – an opinion. But what I can say is there’s no such thing as objective morality, because objective truth tells me otherwise. Morality has always been defined and redefined by man; sometimes under the guise of a deity.

Thou shall not murder – well god what is murder? It wasn’t stoning the impure to death 3,000 years ago, it wasn’t burning heretics at the stake 1,600 years ago for mere dissent, it wasn’t even killing an escaping slave less than 200 years ago – but it’s all these things today (at least in western society). Some might say god gave us these virtues but it’s for us to figure out how to apply them (and our understanding of god’s laws evolves as our intellectual or spiritual capacity grows). But seriously – that sort of abstract and intangible idea has no real value. That’s as illogical as saying the CC is our infallible guide to the word of god, even though at one point in history it interpreted scripture as revealing a geocentric cosmology (that today we conclusively know is wrong).

My favorite quote by any religious man comes from Martin Luther, who admitted “reason is the whore of the devil” and an enemy to faith … indeed it is!

“Where morality is divorced from religion, reason will, it is true, enable a man to recognize to a large extent the ideal to which his nature points. But much will be wanting. He will disregard some of his most essential duties. He will, further, be destitute of the strong motives for obedience to the law afforded by the sense of obligation to God and the knowledge of the tremendous sanction attached to its neglect – motives which experience has proved to be necessary as a safeguard against the influence of the passions”

newadvent.org/cathen/10559a.htm

 

[Hope3]

As an Atheists I’m not claiming that there is no god, I’m claiming that I have no faith in a god. There is a difference.

Why make the distinction since the results are the same? You do not adore the Creator. So, if you do not give adoration to your Creator which is His due even if you believe He exists, then you are condemned to spend eternity in hell anyway, just the same as if you never believed that God exists. Both result in the same punishment–eternal separation from God. This eternal separation from God results in hellfire and there is darkness and wailing and gnashing of teeth.

But, since you do not believe that Scripture is God’s Word, then this should not cause you to lose any sleep mulling this over.

 

[jam070406]

even though at one point in history it interpreted scripture as revealing a geocentric cosmology (that today we conclusively know is wrong).

Not to go off on another tangent but,
You yourself, or probably any of us on these boards, can’t really prove one way or the other regarding geocentrism vs. heliocentrism. You’re really just putting your faith in men. So this sort of argument is meaningless.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Not to go off on another tangent but,
You yourself, or probably any of us on these boards, can’t really prove one way or the other regarding geocentrism vs. heliocentrism. You’re really just putting your faith in men. So this sort of argument is meaningless.

dude … if I wasn’t in the army I’d say pass me whatever it is you’re smoking

How about putting my faith in the little telescope I had in high school (and my own eyes)?

I gotta better thread de-railer … does anyone give a dog dung that MJ died? I say his heart was beating at like 200bpm at only 50 cause he had a guilty conscience. A life that reads like a Greek tragedy. Funny thing is all my black friends are pretty upset about it … while MJ spent the latter half of his life trying to be white. Gee wiz he was so ugly I just hope it isn’t an open casket.

 

[josie_L]

dude … if I wasn’t in the army I’d say pass me whatever it is you’re smoking

How about putting my faith in the little telescope I had in high school (and my own eyes)?

I gotta better thread de-railer … does anyone give a dog dung that MJ died? I say his heart was beating at like 200bpm at only 50 cause he had a guilty conscience. A life that reads like a Greek tragedy. Funny thing is all my black friends are pretty upset about it … while MJ spent the latter half of his life trying to be white. Gee wiz he was so ugly I just hope it isn’t an open casket.

Do you really think MJ was guilty of those offences (you are refering to the child abuse when you claim he had a guilty conscience)?

P.S. Francis, honestly, it doesn’t matter if he was ugly or not the poor man’s dead. And you know you could do with some sensitivity.

 

[Eleve]

Humble, you are aware that MJ’s skin color changed due to skin disease and make-up to normalize his appearance, right?

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Do you really think MJ was guilty of those offences (you are refering to the child abuse when you claim he had a guilty conscience)?

P.S. Francis, honestly, it doesn’t matter if he was ugly or not the poor man’s dead. And you know you could do with some sensitivity.

I know … but I’m not very sensitive. Allow me some nostalgia from yesteryear … how about the good ol’ days when people had thick skin?

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Humble, you are aware that MJ’s skin color changed due to skin disease and make-up to normalize his appearance, right?

Yes … but I also heard that was a crock of bull dung

 

[Eleve]

I know … but I’m not very sensitive. Allow me some nostalgia from yesteryear … how about the good ol’ days when people had thick skin?

Nostalgia for what never existed, a simulacrum à la Colonial Willamsburg. A century before Elvis was racy, the polka was racy, and the waltz was wild and indecent 100 years before that.

But, really? If you care about not hurting people, such as you should if you care about any moral axioms at all, then the onus is not on everyone else to change the apparatus by which we have our subjective experiences. If you don’t want to hurt people, you’re going to have to actually not say things that are offensive. Try it. It’s not much of a sacrifice.

Yes … but I also heard that was a crock of bull dung

It’s a very well-documented and public fact. Even trivial, I’d say. Michael Jackson’s vitiligo and lupus are no more apocryphal than Obama’s smoking addiction.

 

[josie_L]

logically speaking … just because someone creates a laundry list of rules that most people agree on; and stamps it with the name of a religion, it doesn’t validate that religion. In other words it doesn’t make the fictitious tales of that religion any less fictitious or mythological (if indeed they’re truly fictitious and mythological). What it probably does, however, is create a false perception of dependence.

Francis, why do you always have to make things so complicated?

I had a discussion with a buddy the other day who said I don’t look at things at objectively enough. However, it seems to me his argument was illogical. IMO only truth is objective. For instance if I know I’m not color blind, and if I say “the grass is green” (meaning of course green as defined by the English language); and someone else says the grass is black – they’re wrong aren’t they?

Well, if truth is objective why can’t morals be? For example, love is a moral absolute, I mean how could the first human beings exist without some concept of love? And don’t we have a moral obligation to love each other for how else would the human race have survived? Freedom and equality these are absolutes as well. And although people did not understand these concepts (as we understand them today) many moons ago, they still had an understanding of what they meant for no one relished the idea of being a slave. People crave love, freedom, equality, truth. . . but not everyone lived up to these moral absolutes because like today they too were moral relativists.

When we say the truth is always subjective (and that’s the only way to view things objectively) we run into logical folly & all sorts of absurdities. However, morality has changed throughout the course of history (even Christian history). So morality itself cannot be logically viewed as timeless (or “objective”) truth.

No morality doesn’t change but societal norms do.

For instance, we might say killing is wrong … but in fact it’s not always wrong is it? What about self-defense, military conflict, etc. We can only say killing always ends someones life – and since most people prefer to live, it causes harm; and harm is generally wrong. Of course we further refine the word killing into sub-types like murder (a word that inherently defines an objective wrong – so the statement that murder is always wrong is viewed as objectively true). However, murder is only a word used to describe under what circumstances killing is wrong. In the 12th century it was perfectly acceptable to burn heretics at the stake, but today that would offend every sense of liberty, humanity, and justice we know. In other words back then burning heretics at the stake wasn’t murder, but today it is. So while we can say murder is always wrong – we don’t have an objective timeless definition for murder.

Killing is wrong but sometimes it’s necessary. By the way, do you see abortion has murder? Sorry I had to bring it up to prove a point, so please answer the question. As for the heretics that were burned, maybe some of them were evil, Francis? Did it ever occur to you that these people were out to do harm? And furthermore, all people were given a chance to renounce/recant to avoid the stake. It’s more generous than what we do with people on death row.

This all might sound like semantics – but it’s not. The simple point is there’s no such thing as objective morality – there never has been. Indeed most people have a nostalgia for a past that never really existed; and in my experience it’s always those who think they have it the most figured out who have the most jumbled logic.

You seemed to have it all figured out.

to be continued . . .

 

[Eleve]

For example, love is a moral absolute, I mean how could the first human beings exist without some concept of love? And don’t we have a moral obligation to love each other for how else would the human race have survived?

While I don’t question that love (I assume that you mean agape and not eros) is an important moral value, I’d point out that there are plenty of wildebeests, bacteria, and so on, living without love. This also invokes the naturalistic fallacy; there are some species that reproduce through rape, but I don’t think that rape would be an absolute moral value if humans were one of these species.

In fact, for a moral value to be absolute it needs to be valid independently of whether any particular groups or individuals are exhibiting it or not.

 

[josie_L]

Thou shall not murder – well god what is murder? It wasn’t stoning the impure to death 3,000 years ago, it wasn’t burning heretics at the stake 1,600 years ago for mere dissent, it wasn’t even killing an escaping slave less than 200 years ago – but it’s all these things today (at least in western society). Some might say god gave us these virtues but it’s for us to figure out how to apply them (and our understanding of god’s laws evolves as our intellectual or spiritual capacity grows). But seriously – that sort of abstract and intangible idea has no real value. That’s as illogical as saying the CC is our infallible guide to the word of god, even though at one point in history it interpreted scripture as revealing a geocentric cosmology (that today we conclusively know is wrong).

Firstly, stoning from what I just read was not practiced very often amongst the Jews, in fact, there are only a few cases mentioned in the Bible (and this usually done by mob rule). Furthermore, killing is wrong but then again so is impurity. And do you honestly think that if people were following the laws of God that any of this would matter? Furthermore, ancient life from what I gathered was barbaric, crude . . . the Jews had to ensure that they remained pure. This was necessary as they were God’s chosen people. And God knowing the conditions that the Jews were in had to enforce laws that would keep them in line. Remember this was a time when the Holy Spirit had not yet descended and man was tainted/wounded by original sin. So do you think that God was protecting them, the Jews, that is, from becoming as barbaric as the Canaanites (and other tribes) who were very promiscious, evil (they sacrificed their children in fire) and cannibalistic? And doesn’t the Bible say that the soul is more important than the body? Don’t you see how if there was a Truth, those who perverted the Truth were putting peoples’ souls at risk? Therefore which is worse to die or to be eternally damned? Furthermore, heretics were given the chance to recant and most of the killing by the way was not done by the Church but secular courts. Hence, this is more a reflection of societal norms. Unfortunately society was still in transition but at the very least moving towards a greater intellectual and spiritual capacity. And the Church was meant to transcend the world but oftentimes she failed to do so. But moral absolutes have to exist if we recognize the wrongness of these actions. Do you think one day it will be ok to do such things again? No.

My favorite quote by any religious man comes from Martin Luther, who admitted “reason is the whore of the devil” and an enemy to faith … indeed it is!

Martin wasn’t Pope so he didn’t have the charism of infallibility. Sorry!

 

[Hope3]

Eleve:

Man, you practically gave my answer yourself. Atheists don’t base their lives around what Christians believe will be the results of our choices. It’s a pretty logical conclusion from not being Christians that we aren’t concerned with the Christian concept of the final judgment.

Why does this stuff excite you so much, anyway? Are thoughts of atheists suffering in flames for eternity what gets you out of bed in the morning?

Hey, why the concern? Hellfire is irrelevant to you. This is why I stated: “since you do not believe that Scripture is God’s Word, then this should not cause you to lose any sleep mulling this over.”

If you think that the thought of atheists suffering in flames for eternity makes me happy, then you have no clue about Christians at all. None of us Christians are posting here to you and “your likeminded friends” in the hope that you will be damned. We post here in the hope that you will change your thinking so that you can be saved. Big difference.

Why are you questioning our motives? Don’t you think that we can care about the eternal destiny of all persons that we meet online whether we like them personally or not, or whether they agree with our theology or not? Do you think that being an atheist gives you a special insight as to the motives of non-atheists so that you can judge their intentions unerringly? Pleeaasse! Why do we quote Scripture to atheists? We do it because we do care about where they will spend eternity. It is not an ego trip for us at all. We do not even know who you are.

Jude 1:23 “but others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire, hating even the garment defiled by the flesh.”

My point is this: Why even debate this? Your mind is made up. As long as you are happy with your choice, what is the point? I doubt very much that very many persons on a Catholic Forum will want to join you and convert to your “Atheist” beliefs so why bother? Are you trying to hone your argument against the existence of God? By all means, try, but don’t tell us on our forum what rules we have to play by so as to not offend you with our Scriptures which we actually do believe to be true.

 

[Eleve]

Furthermore, killing is wrong but then again so is impurity. And do you honestly think that if people were following the laws of God that any of this would matter?

Are you honestly suggesting that impurity (which, per Deuteronomy 22:23:24, includes the sin of being raped) warrants punishment by stoning? Can violating God’s laws (especially purity laws that have nothing to do with harming another person) justify torturing a human being to death?

This sort of moral equivocation just makes me want to hold up a big mirror on the face of Christians who say that atheists have no foundation for morals.

 

[josie_L]

While I don’t question that love (I assume that you mean agape and not eros) is an important moral value, I’d point out that there are plenty of wildebeests, bacteria, and so on, living without love. This also invokes the naturalistic fallacy; there are some species that reproduce through rape, but I don’t think that rape would be an absolute moral value if humans were one of these species.

In fact, for a moral value to be absolute it needs to be valid independently of whether any particular groups or individuals are exhibiting it or not.

Point 1:

Humans have an intellect so they are different from other animals.

Point 2:

Ok, how do I explain this, moral absolutes (natural moral law) had to have existed before humans came into being. Like other laws it is constant (otherwise chaos would ensue). Human beings were able to decipher this moral law through conscience. The problem was not everyone chose to follow their conscience. So yes, it is independent of whether particular groups (not necessarily individuals though) exhibited it or not.

P.S. I say not individuals because I’m certain there were righteous people among even the evil.

 

[Eleve]

Hey, why the concern? Hellfire is irrelevant to you. This is why I stated: “since you do not believe that Scripture is God’s Word, then this should not cause you to lose any sleep mulling this over.”

What really particularly bothers me about this is that most of my social sphere has no trouble worshiping someone who would condemn people to hellfire for eternity.

If you think that the thought of atheists suffering in flames for eternity makes me happy, then you have no clue about Christians at all. None of us Christians are posting here to you and “your likeminded friends” in the hope that you will be damned. We post here in the hope that you will change your thinking so that you can be saved. Big difference.

Then you’re doing a damned (pun not intended) poor job of it. Both of your posts in this thread have tried to communicate with atheists using premises that we do not share. If all you can offer is threats of hellfire that we don’t believe to exist, then you aren’t earning any more credence than the guy at the next tent trying to sell me Islam.

Why even debate this? Your mind is made up. As long as you are happy with your choice, what is the point? I doubt very much that very many persons on a Catholic Forum will want to join you and convert to your “Atheist” beliefs so why bother? Are you trying to hone your argument against the existence of God?

I actually came here discerning Catholicism, although at this point it’s clear enough that it’s not for me. At this point I’m bogged down refuting the notion that atheists are amoral monsters.

 

[Eleve]

Humans have an intellect so they are different from other animals.

This still doesn’t mean that observing humans is a good way to derive morals. Humans do a lot of nasty things to each other; some probably even amount to survival mechanisms. But, even if we were perfect, the very definition of a moral absolute is that it is not dependent on whether people adhere to it or not.