It’s fun to watch leftists/secularists stumble on the problem of the arbitrariness and baselessness of any “values” that they espouse,
especially when you point it out in person, one on one.
They usually point to some “consensus”, but the funny thing about that is, there were consensus in the past that would be abhorred today, and in the future, present day consensus will be considered evil.
So who’s right, hmmmm?
That’s when they name call.
Yes, that is quite fun. I like to point out to atheists that, if they truly believed in atheism, they should be hedonists. After all, with no God to account to, why shouldn’t they only pursue their own self-interests above all else?
They don’t want to agree to that, because they want to maintain their illusion that atheism is something principled, but they can’t offer a logic reason not to agree, yet they also want to maintain that atheists are superior rationally. So they are really over the barrel on that one.
The best argument they can produce is that they should still do good for others, because having a civil society is important. Yet, when you deconstruct that argument, they are really only saying that they want the benefits of a civil society, so it is still a hedonistic argument of self-interest and can’t really help them :)