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.
An IQ above room temperature, a shocking rarity I know but it exists out there.
I entirely agree that religion can provide frameworks for morals, it can be a great power for good.
But only someone ignorant would say that only true morals can come from it, and it alone.
Not to mention which bloody religion are you referring to? I can only assume Christianity as that one generally is the best. But it has flaws of it's own.
As I said, you really don't need to believe in a god, to know that stepping on babies probably isn't the best idea.
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.
An IQ above room temperature, a shocking rarity I know but it exists out there.
I entirely agree that religion can provide frameworks for morals, it can be a great power for good.
But only someone ignorant would say that only true morals can come from it, and it alone.
Not to mention which bloody religion are you referring to? I can only assume Christianity as that one generally is the best. But it has flaws of it's own.
As I said, you really don't need to believe in a god, to know that stepping on babies probably isn't the best idea.
Your answer is an IQ above room temperature? Meaning that your framework for morality is you, yourself?
Surely you see the problem with this.