It's not shallow. It's a logical observation on the nature of morality. Without an objective source of morality everything boils down to stark utilitarianism. Democracy posturing as morality, rule by numbers rather than what is right.
"Killing innocent humans is wrong."
Islam disagrees. One billion of them in fact. What now? How can that be dealt with? Is your belief system even equipped to deal with that?
That's the sort of nonsense which makes religious people look retarded, you cannot point to a room full of happy law abiding and highly moral people and decry them for mere beliefs.
You're being no less retarded than lefties who decry a room of Whites being immoral for being White.
Also fuck Islam, the only thing they're good for is how they treat their women.
How is it retarded? Weight of numbers is, at best, amoral and often immoral. That's basically a fact, unless you're prepared to advocate for a pure democracy of mob rule. For morality to exist at all it by necessity must put structures on the whims of the populace.
Nevermind equating law abiding with highly moral. Any government with universal suffrage is not a moral one, and thus strict obeisance to their laws is again at best amoral.
I didn't say anything about some sort of tyranny of the masses.
I'm saying a moral argument can be done by anyone, religious or not.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that some things are good, and some things are bad, inherently.
Also for 'law abiding' I'm mostly meaning the big laws, murder, that sorta deal. I don't think someone is immoral for cutting an AR's barrel to 11 inches.
And I'm asking you without religion, that being an objective source of morality above and outside of humans, what basis you have for a moral framework.
It's not shallow. It's a logical observation on the nature of morality. Without an objective source of morality everything boils down to stark utilitarianism. Democracy posturing as morality, rule by numbers rather than what is right.
"Killing innocent humans is wrong."
Islam disagrees. One billion of them in fact. What now? How can that be dealt with? Is your belief system even equipped to deal with that?
That's the sort of nonsense which makes religious people look retarded, you cannot point to a room full of happy law abiding and highly moral people and decry them for mere beliefs.
You're being no less retarded than lefties who decry a room of Whites being immoral for being White.
Also fuck Islam, the only thing they're good for is how they treat their women.
How is it retarded? Weight of numbers is, at best, amoral and often immoral. That's basically a fact, unless you're prepared to advocate for a pure democracy of mob rule. For morality to exist at all it by necessity must put structures on the whims of the populace.
Nevermind equating law abiding with highly moral. Any government with universal suffrage is not a moral one, and thus strict obeisance to their laws is again at best amoral.
I didn't say anything about some sort of tyranny of the masses.
I'm saying a moral argument can be done by anyone, religious or not.
It doesn't take a genius to figure out that some things are good, and some things are bad, inherently.
Also for 'law abiding' I'm mostly meaning the big laws, murder, that sorta deal. I don't think someone is immoral for cutting an AR's barrel to 11 inches.
And I'm asking you without religion, that being an objective source of morality above and outside of humans, what basis you have for a moral framework.