bokonon
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2007
- Messages
- 4,438
What's funny here is that, by Plumjam's lights, when a theist looks inward and questions his conscience to determine (for example) that slavery is wrong, even though it is condoned by the Bible, he is presumed to be tapping in to "objective" morality.
When an atheist looks inward and questions his conscience to determine that slavery is wrong, he's just making it up as he goes along, and is apt to do something crazy or antisocial.
These guys like to use God as some kind of ventriloquist's dummy, claiming that it is his will that determines right and wrong, when in fact, just like the atheists, it is their own empathy and socialization that provides their true moral compass.
They never seem to catch on to the fact that they often do the right thing IN SPITE of the Bible, just like atheists.
Then DOC comes along, and rationalizes "slavery is wrong" as the logical corollary of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," but can't seem to make the same association when it comes to homosexual couples. God may not be the prettiest ventriloquist's dummy, but he makes up for it in versatility.
When an atheist looks inward and questions his conscience to determine that slavery is wrong, he's just making it up as he goes along, and is apt to do something crazy or antisocial.
These guys like to use God as some kind of ventriloquist's dummy, claiming that it is his will that determines right and wrong, when in fact, just like the atheists, it is their own empathy and socialization that provides their true moral compass.
They never seem to catch on to the fact that they often do the right thing IN SPITE of the Bible, just like atheists.
Then DOC comes along, and rationalizes "slavery is wrong" as the logical corollary of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," but can't seem to make the same association when it comes to homosexual couples. God may not be the prettiest ventriloquist's dummy, but he makes up for it in versatility.