The Christian believes himself to be in possession of an absolute standard of moral definition, one existing independent of his desire or volition and can object from that standard; a relativist must begin with the premise that there is no such standard and because of this his objection is an attack on his own understanding of value.
Well, if I’m right and God exists I stand a much better chance of turning his heart. You, on the other hand, begin and end with no greater claim than the tyrant’s and so are less likely to meet with success, given your effort can be nothing more than an attempt to replace his will with your own.
And who can prove anything in this regard? Labeling a thing that you cannot demonstrate to be nonsense as nonsense, especially given your amply demonstrated rationality in so many other considerations, should give you reason for pause…there’s a thin line between preference and prejudice.
You know the answer to this as surely as I do. Your position here is a half step removed from “I can’t know everything so why learn any?”
Untrue and you should distinguish between the sort of evidence you mean and not declare something so obviously against the weight of even casual examination, evidence, if you will.
That’s a nicely stated article of faith, but who defines the common and compassion? And why should I serve another man’s will when his opinion has no more intrinsic value than my own? Look how so many Atheists chafe at bowing to the idea of a perfect will and standard and I’m to believe they’ll take to their knees for a fellow or collective? They positively hurl derision upon the majority as it stands...
Historically, that hasn’t been the case. Evolving social orders have developed mechanisms of the sort you mention, but those have primarily (and in a functional sense, almost exclusively) been generated by religious institutions and/or as a reflection of religious sensibility.
And your evidence for this extraordinary claim is what, exactly?
If only you could define the innocent for anyone else…
