"...many neighbors living in countries run by people espousing the same Atheistic "values" that you do.."
You are deliberately playing the fool in order to misrepresent. Shows you have no arguments.
Of course, there are no atheistic values. The only thing being atheist tells anyone is they don't believe in god. The only thing you know about a person with black hair is they have black hair. Yes, it is statistically true that atheists are FAR under-represented in the prison population per their demographics--so one could infer that they are naturally more law abiding than other groups--but that is neither here nor there. The point is that you know nothing about an individual atheist except that he has no superstition regarding a Deity. He might like ham and eggs. He might not. He might like the opera. He might not. He might think prostitution (or marijuana, or whatever) should be legalised. He might not.
So stop your phoney "atheist values". Find some other puerile way to mislead and misrepresent as you indulge your childish personal attacks against adults.
"The philosophical problem with moral nihilism is that it cannot justify its arbitrary moral assessments"
Firstly, you clearly are unable to comprehend the difference between moral nihilism and moral relativism. Nihilism is a philosophical or intellectual world view adopted by a very small percentage of people. Relativism is a scientific fact. Morality is relative. Morality is opinion. Claims to the contrary are not supported by any evidence. They are fairy-tale claims devoid of thought or reason.
Moral assessments are NOT arbitrary. That is an absurd and very very false premise that you have gratuitously slipped in. Arbitrary means "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system" Social mores in any group, community, society, culture, church hall, time or place...are anything but that. Our legal system objectifies our common social moral values. It is based on thousands of years of experimentation, experience, and reasoning.
"that there is an intrinsic value to not hurting people--and that is inconsistent with their position"
No. You are as wrong as a pacer doing a trot. When people form moral opinions--individually or in groups--they consider all the factors their reasoning is capable of addressing. Thus, tribal morality (where reasoning powers are primitive and constrained) will differ considerably from morals derived from thousands of years of dedicated polemic. Add to this, that many groups (including modern groups) incorporate absurd and primitive superstitions into formulating their opinions. This results in capricious, self-serving, irrational, and often very harmful 'morality'. Just consider the great moral good (so so ABSOLUTELY good)...that was done to Malala??? |
