Even though there's no objective reason for why we use the measurement "inch" we still use use it because we've agreed it works for us due to our size and the environment we operate in. Same with morals. Why is this so hard for Christians to understand?
Groups have moral variation and without a belief in your own morals being objective and thus superior to that of other out groups you run the risk of believing your own less strongly and being subjected to a more evolutionarily successful moral system by conquest or by subversion.
Also within some of the finer points of ethics, you can’t really argue against genetic proliferation, genocidal aryan tribes proliferated more than modern shitlibs, the aryan ethic is going to survive while the liberal ethic will not.
Just as an example.
So you need a corpus of objective ethics to keep a strong moral view which will not easily give way to outside pressures.
Believing in objective morality is simply more pragmatic than denying it.
Also being religious is eugenic, it’s common, natural, healthy.
Being an atheist is a sign of a profoundly troubled society. Look at the fruits of Western Secularism, foreigners run their nations, browns invade them, and they do nothing at all, they even condemn the Westerners who try to save themselves.
>BUT IS IT TRUE IS RELIGION REAL
I haven’t said, but don’t you think putting our survival high on the list of important things is a little more pressing?
You don’t even believe religion is true, the least you could do is not damage the belief of practical and eugenic groups who do.
those is all reasons why to pretend like objective morality is true (if you have certain goals)
But it's not like it's going to convince anyone to believe it really is true
I think the benefist kinda crumble if everyone is in on it being a larp
>it’s not going to convince anyone it’s true
People who believe it is true will replace you. That is the beauty of it, you can labor all day trying to redpill everyone, but at the end of the day you’re a spiritual incel being removed by people who really do believe.
Without claiming objectively you open your system up to inherent weaknesses other systems which objectivity do not have.
>look at the results
I know. Secular Westerners who question themselves are losing to low iq browns who unironically believe in magic.
>we could end them all
Yet your liberal ethic won’t allow you to raise a single hand in your own advocacy.
>So you need a corpus of objective ethics to keep a strong moral view which will not easily give way to outside pressures.
You can have religious rules without claiming objectivity.
>B-but whats going to stop someone saying someone else's religious rules are better than ours??
Look at the results. It's that easy.
The US customary foot is defined in reference to a meter
The meter is defined based on wavelengths of light, or an actual iridium bar defined as a meter
This is an objective standard
But wait....that's not in the Bible! Are you saying that we can get objective truths from nature without recourse to a higher power to tell us what to think?
Dirk...wow this is incredible, a breakthrough! Be careful Dirk, God won't like you thinking for yourself.
>The meter is defined based on wavelengths of light, or an actual iridium bar defined as a meter
>This is an objective standard
What if I wanted a measurement more exact than photons? The perfect inch does not exist. It is continually being defined by humans
Am I wrong?
Yes, and you're shifting the goalposts. I've refuted the original post.
We use objects to define measurements. Just like how we use letters on paper to define morals. In my original post I said there is no objective reason why we use an inch. Does that help you understand?
A unit of measurement is based on an objective value like space. How you divide space is arbitrary. But no one disagrees how long the division you decide on is. This is because space is objective. You cannot say the same thing about morality or what morality is based in. So your metaphor falls apart.
If all humans died, would there still be "an inch" ?
>would there still be "an inch
If God died, would there still be objective moral facts?
This literally happened 2000 years ago
>equates morality to penis-measuring device
Measuring your dick is infinitely easier than deciding if killing a man who's pointing a gun at you is murder or not.
Just as long we agree there is a FACT about every tricky and nuanced moral matter
we could have no clue, scratching our heads
but God has written it into the fabric of reality whether pushing the fat man off a trolly heading towards 6 baby hitless, while under a shroud of ignorance. Is good or bad
There's a fact of that matter,
there wouldn't be cases of ontological ambiguity