The man who refuses to judge, who neither agrees nor disagrees, who declares that there are no absolutes and believes that he escapes responsibility, is the man responsible for all the blood that is now spilled in the world. Reality is an absolute, existence is an absolute, a speck of dust is an absolute and so is a human life. Whether you live or die is an absolute. Whether you have a piece of bread or not, is an absolute. Whether you eat your bread or see it vanish into a looter's stomach, is an absolute.

There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist, who is willing to sit out the course of any battle, willing to cash in on the blood of the innocent or to crawl on his belly to the guilty, who dispenses justice by condemning both the robber and the robbed to jail, who solves conflicts by ordering the thinker and the fool to meet each other halfway. In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromise is the transmitting rubber tube.”

^^^^^

Even for an atheist

Not knowing does not stop reality

Eating poison because you did not know it was poison will still kill you

Good shit Paul

I hope that is not what you took out of what i was trying to say

I'd say there is a problem with claiming morals are absolute, it goes against that quote at least. If they were transcendent and permanent they'd not be bent in every direction, according to the will of each individual. Moral values require an agreement among a majority to be sustainable, but they're not handed down from some magical place. It is more to do with the limitations on what civilisations are practically possible. That's why moral systems are constantly in flux, the debate and discussion never stops. Good thing too or we'd still be sacrificing people on altars.

Saying morals are transcendent is just a way to sneak jesus into a conversation

I am not trying to sneak anything

I am Catholic and i do not hide this

You listed secular humanism along with all societies major evils dude.

When it is secular humanism that civilised the fucking western world

Secular humanism is the height of mans arogance

and no

lol we're still talking about this? I left, ate dinner and came back

Every inch of moral progress for centuries has had to move against the objections of religious permanence. That is the reality of it.

lol

what was the argument against slavery

@Roarey fite me

What was the argument FOR it?

Industry

it was accepted by all societies across all mankind

One doesn't find objections to slavery in scripture

Lol

Check again

yet it was the christians who were the abolitionists

There are direct references for God and Jesus condoning slavery

I have read the bible from cover to cover, twice. And I still read it now and then

certain sects

The New Testament is pretty progressive on slavery

Jesus told slaves to obey their masters

Christians were indeed abolitionists. Eventually. Because they were Christian? If that were so they'd not have endorsed it for as long as they did. The British ended slavery. Not Christianity. British society.

Show me where secular humanism made the argument first

If everyone actually read the entire Bible there would be a lot fewer Christians

you said it was against religion progress moved

It does, where is the anti slavery in the scripture?

yet it was the religious Quakers who started the abolitionist movement

and the catholics

I do not need scripture alone

People who had enough money and power to not need slaves to support their business were the only ones safe to criticize slavery and were the first abolitionists. That's my interpretation, at least.