its objective in the sense that it is common among most humans

>

This is your atheists folks

Please read a book, I beg of you

LMAO @ "le read a book"

rather than forming an actual argument

I don't even need to, you think common traits means objective

low IQ

This is stuff settled centuries ago

Like where did you get this, Sam Harris?

Like even if you really respectable atheist philosophers that would be fine

> Objective because there is a majority consensus

oof, so truth, objectivity, is based on majority consensus?

Thats not how that works, there are plenty of rather convincing arguments for objective morality, but that then basically is in itself an argument for god

@Eoppa And makes sense, still that requires quite in depth knowledge and possibly knowledge of some hebrew to properly execute. I have to read a proper text on the old testament besides just reading the bible from start to finish

lmao who said that

You @Riley ```its objective in the sense that it is common among most humans```

yes

it is common among humans

You will not find a single culture that condones senseless murder

this is because humans evolved morals

I'm going to ignore any historical claims for now, this doesn't make any of that objective

this would have been very useful, because primates are very social creatures

alright maybe it was a poor word choice

do you the point I am trying to make though?

I asked if you believe in an objective morality, if it's a no, then your point is moot, if you believe that primitive evolved instincts is what we should emulate, that's a very very slippery slope

how is it a slippery slope?

wait I don't think that lol

I think that morals simply came from these instincts

they are however, influenced by the enviroment

a big influence is science and reasoning

culture and religion are also major influences

the environment in general

It was once socially acceptable for a grown man to have sex with a 10 - 14 year old. However, as we learned more about psychology and biology, we figured out that children are harmed mentally and physically during sex. Our biological morals tell us that harming children is wrong, and therefore having sex with children is wrong

does this make any sense @Eoppa

The Aztecs believed that if they did not preform human sacrifices, the God Tlaltecuhtli would become angered and destroy the world. To them, human sacrifices was absolutely necessary! They still believed that murder was wrong however, you would be punished if you started killing random people for no reason.

you are accidentally arguing for objective morality, in that morality ecists there is a right and wrong, and its not even the interpretation but rather the facts that determine who this is appled to

oh really? thats not what eoppa said

i think that its not that black and white

in that last post you are, I think its called the argument from convergence

Empathy is instilled in us through genetics

where regardless of the facts, for example some islamists say its wrong to kill people with souls or enslave them, but women dont have souls thus they can be enslaved.

which is why most cultures share similar moral compasses