I understand she prevented women accessing contraception, and helped to reinstate a child abuser into a position of power in the church. Unless you have some source that shows otherwise…?
I note that you have no defence against your fallacious appeal to consequences.
So what? Neither can heliocentrism, catastrophism, atomism or emergentism. They’re ideas about how the world/universe works, not bases for behaviour. Criticising materialism because it can’t be used to justify moral behaviour is like criticising plate tectonics for the same reason. It shows a complete failure to understand materialism (and atheism) as well as a lack of awareness of Hume’s is-ought problem.
That’s a ridiculously simplified version of abolitionism and yet another confirmation that you are completely clueless about atheism.
“Sound metaphysical arguments”??? Yet you accuse me of avoiding thinking critically? You’re a joke.
Codswallop. I quoted you saying that “Atheism … doesn’t even allow for any sort of moral growth”.
You didn’t quote it, you stated it as fact.
Oh, it’s your ‘objective’ moral system, is it? Not your god’s objective moral system, or your religion’s objective moral system, or your scripture’s objective moral system?
If your moral system can be objective without being based on some external source, then so can mine or anyone else’s.
If your moral system is objective because it is based on some external source, then identify it and show that it says what you claim it does.
No problem.
I’ve never asserted that my moral code is the true one.
“a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge”.
Your habit of avoiding questions about the basis of your ‘objective’ morality suggests to me that it is based entirely on your own opinions, and that every criticism you have made of subjective morality applies even more to your own moral code.
Why? I’ve never said that I was a utilitarian, and I don’t believe that keeping a segment of the population ignorant is good for the population as a whole.
You don’t seem to realise that being right about science can lead to advances in technology, agriculture and medicine, and thus affect levels of happiness. Perhaps you think those who are overworked, disease-ridden and barely surviving are happier than those who have leisure, health and sufficient food.
Finally:
That’s not taken from an objective moral code. It is your opinion.
So I’ll ask again.
What does your objective moral code say about selling women into sexual slavery?
Don’t try to paraphrase it or give your understanding of it, because those are subjective, not objective. You claim to be following an objective moral code. Quote it. Or stop pretending you have one.