| >Your argument presupposes that the only place morals can be derived from is religion ... not exactly, because: > where [the rules' existence] is the entire argument for why you should follow them. also counts for secular law. Religions just suppose a common denominator for justice, and always via authority, in form of personification in priests, juges, elders, oneself and messages via koans, laws and other scripture. The content of the message may be however debatable, because the argument of authority alone is not sufficient (as netiquette has it), but is not a fallacy that would subvert its message (except that power might corrupt). >God says so, end of discussion in context of social order the end of discussion means first of all that there are no further hints, so to speak, and you have to work out the hows and whys yourself. All this is just life and atheists aren't free of it either. They prescribe to the opposition of a concrete religious ideal or otherwise don't care about it. But socially critical opinions especially can only be derived from social feedback, either way. Even if exclusive authority seems unacceptable, that can be helped by granting everyone some authority, instead of disregarding it for those offenders (ie. that god guy who I here so much about). Edit: So of course, you are right, atheist do not fundamentally reject fundamentalism (you see, that would be paradox). I was just trying to say, I liked the first part of your comment better. |