Then you have completely misunderstood belief. It’s not just about evidence and if it was then it would not be belief. It is about the faith. That is the same for any religion and it’s so vital to humans that it is recognised as a human right. You cannot judge someone else’s mindset as to their belief. Some die for that belief and determine their entire life choices on that belief. That is not pretence.
Thats fair enough but you cant then make any absolute claims that its wrong. Its just wrong to you which doesnt mean much in the overall scheme of things. It only expresses something about you and nothing else. Thanks for the insight about you.
Otherwise if you do want to make more of a claim that it is really wrong then on what basis do you know that you are absolutely right or they are absolutely wrong to condemn them. You just agreed above with relative morality and I have posted below that relative morality makes no sense when it comes to any one person or culture claiming moral absolutes. The moment you startcondemning others it takes a hyocritical position in the overall scheme of things. So on what basis do you really know they are wrong.
Philosophical Problems With Moral Relativism
If we interpret normative relativism as requiring tolerance of other views, the whole theory is imperiled by inconsistency. A moral commitment to tolerance of other practices and beliefs thus leads inexorably to the abandonment of normative relativism.4
Philosophical Problems With Moral Relativism | Christian Research Institute
Moral relativism, broadly construed, is the view that ethical codes are relative to the standpoints of the peoples who embrace them. relativists typically hold that ethical truths are relative to culture, that no culture’s ethical code is superior to another’s, and that we ought not judge other ethical codes as inferior to our own.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk88sZw4YhM
The Hypocrisy of the Moral Relativist
Just today, one Facebook respondent wrote, “Christianity is without a doubt the most immoral religion on the planet.” Another atheist responded, “Your God is a cruel sadist.” there were other responses that were too gross to repeat. However, it seems that each respondent failed to realize how illogical their responses had been.
If the atheist admits that he can only make subjective moral judgments, entirely relative to his feelings and his culture, then he has nothing objective to say. He can’t say that “it’s wrong to torture, kidnap or rape.” He can only say, “From the standpoint of my own culture, feelings and judgments, what you’re doing is wrong.” However, he can’t say that these things are indeed wrong!
However, the atheist continues to make absolute judgments about things even after admitting that there is no basis to make these judgments.
Mann's Word: The Hypocrisy of the Moral Relativist
Because of the moral precepts or lack there of that they choose.
Because its your opinion. It only holds any weight for you. It doesnt say anything about whether I or anyone else is wrong absolutely if you base it on societies ideas of moral judgements. So I can dismiss it as being one persons personal view which says nothing of the truth. I am not trying to prove this. I am merely showing the hypocrisy of those who are condemning anyone for their views and beliefs according to the ideologies of the culture condemning those people. IE western society allowed a vote on same sex mariage because they acknowledge and allowed people to disagree with it based on their belief. Then they condemned people for disgareeing with it. Seems illogical and hypocritical dont you think.
All I can say is that secular atheist society promotes relative morality. We are in a post-modernist era where people think there is no truth, truth is what you make it, and everyone has their own truth. So that logically means that everyone’s truth is just as relevant and no one should be able to condemn anyone absolutely about their moral truths. I have posted some support for this above. Most ethicists agree with this.
The fact is the same society stands by laws that support cultural and religious freedoms to hold those truths and tolerance of other cultures supports this. How can western secular society on the one hand celebrate and support an Indigenous or different culture and their right to hold their values and beliefs and then condemn them when they express those very beliefs and values just because they dont match their own. This is cultural imperialism. As the links I posted state this is an illogical and hypocritical position don't you think.
Its a sort of aroggant position to take where you think you know better and us poor souls who see things differently need to be educated to your level to really have a say. Actually it sort of supports what I am saying about taking an absolute position while proclaiming there are no truths.
