religion has value as an anchor, to keep a person on a path and to put multiple people on the same path

while the moral nihilist declares that there can not be an objective stance on morality

if you're a relativist, you can have preferences, but you're trying make others believe you value absolute dogshit to your own opinion

they are equal to you

because it's all relative

moral nihilists can have preferences too

yes, and preferences succ diccc

but they have no divine justification

they're only justification is, "i said so"

that's not good enough for a lot of things

I agree with Banjod here

@ALternativeToLife im not available in 5 hrs

im gonna be at my cousin's bday

kinda gay

well, the opinion stems away from the fact that no moral objectivity can be claimed

but the fact that we don't think moral nihilism is good enough to get what we want doesn't mean that moral nihilism is incorrect

Any religion can claim moral objectivity

I disagree, I think there is a moral objective system

for anyone honest enough to see it

falsely though. don't be autistic about it hahahaha

those systems are ad hoc

not false "ahahaha"

nor are they ad hoc

the system is axiomatic

it is assumed that the morals are objective

nor are they axiomatic lmao

anyway, I'm not about to explain how you get to objective morality again

you obviously know very little of theology, especially monotheistic theology

no epic. That was my explanation as to how they are ad hoc

okay buddy

it's not objective in the sense you want it, which is a factbook of life

but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist

any good moral system is flexible

because you have to deal with reality

if you believe in metaphysics, then yes, you can claim they are objective. I don't by metaphysics. I can't imagine how you would take any other position for objective morality though

@M'beke no, ig vc

oooh

sure, they can be flexible if you believe in an objective moral system

listen to Jay Dyer 🤷

a religion debate