I am not proposing moral relativism, I am proposing societal betterment within the bounds of that particular society. The objective morality is society and its laws.
are you saying that objective morality is decided by what is legal and illegal?
and which society decides? or do you mean that the subjective morality of each society is the objective morality, but you mean it locally, as in only for that society, and if so. how is that not moral relativism? each society deeming what is moral for itself in its unique situation, is moral relativism by definition.
1.) Sincerely believing something does not make it true. What they were doing was not better for society, thus not moral… whether or not they believed it to be so.
2.) They were extremely intelligent, but how can you dream of saying they were anywhere near as “moral” as you and me? That is simply disgustingly incorrect.
because they were people just like you and me, and they believed they were acting for the betterment of society, the same thing that you propose is a good basis for morality. and your right its end result was disgusting, but to say its incorrect you need to provide an argument, something that refutes my position not just the statement that something is disgusting.
No, it is not. This is a disgusting statement. I am an Atheist. I am not a mass murderer. The necessity of your statement is now disproved
.
i didnt say you were, i said that your position on atheistic morality has historical precedent, and not in a good way.
though declaring i am wrong in my position is a far cry from reasonable proof
Pointing to a few examples and saying that this is the “historical end” to atheism is absurd.
i pointed to the hundred million plus, recent deaths that applied atheistic morality has resulted in, there is nothing absurd about that historical fact.
and its not an isolated example, the same situation occured across cultural, temporal, linguistic, ethnic, and political lines. the only thing these very different regimes all had in common was the applied atheitic morality, that you call, the ‘betterment of society’
On a societal level? The evidence points to secular countries being better countries on many levels:
dmiessler.com/blog/atheistic-societies-are-happy-societies.
im suprised to find something that supports atheism on an athiest web site. try to use neutral sources. its more convincing
If every catholic did so, I would definitely mention it. If it was the exception and not the norm, however, I would not dream of doing so. Since it is an exception to the normal Atheist that does these things, I would not mention it.
yet, it is the norm on the societal level, there have been no officially atheistic regimes, of any size, where such atrocities have not occured.
in other words, when your idea of morality based on the betterment of society has actually been put into practice, as it has been a number of times in different places, the out come is the same. people die, and a lot of them.
why is it untrue, because you say so? because there are whole libraries written on these atrocities, these regimes openly stated their atheism and their detachment from religion, and that the ‘betterment of society’ was their moral standard.
as marx said, ‘religion is the opiate of the masses’
so how is it untrue?
