Comment

ccryx@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

I think there are (at least) two things wrong with the argument:

it assumes that there can be no source of absolute morality aside from religion, ignoring centuries if not millennia of moral philosophy/ethics (which at least tries to answer the question seriously).
even if nonreligious sources of morality don’t exist, the argument assumes that religion is a source of absolute morality. since conflicting religions exist, the religionness-property alone is not enough to validate religion as a source of absolute morality.

Sort:hotnew top

PlasmaSnake@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
It doesn’t assume that there is no source of absolute morality. It says that religious are concerning for deriving their absolute source of mortality from a deity

source
NateNate60@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
At least for me, it seems that the assumption that there is no absolute source of morality besides religion is correct. Human morality has changed a lot throughout history, and lots of people have tried to dictate morality across borders and across time. The only ones who have succeeded in the slightest are religious leaders.

The argument is generally that one specific religion provides a source of absolute morality. The existence of conflicting religions does not invalidate that. It provides one source of absolute morality, not necessarily the only source of absolute morality. Anyone can claim something is a source of absolute morality. I can claim a magic 8-ball is a source of absolute morality. It does not mean that people will accept it, but I can claim it.

source