How do you figure? Videtur a priest or a rabbi would be claiming, whether rightly or wrongly is another matter, an absolute standard of which at least parts had been made somehow accessible to human type personnel. Whereas the atheist seems to deny any absolutes and to proceed to apply them.
Any atheist who says I am immoral is no different than a preacher or rabbi saying I am a sinner.
How do you figure? Videtur a priest or a rabbi would be claiming, whether rightly or wrongly is another matter, an absolute standard of which at least parts had been made somehow accessible to human type personnel. Whereas the atheist seems to deny any absolutes and to proceed to apply them.
Yes, you are correct there, at least the priest or rabbi admits there is one singular source defining what their ideals are.
Plato’s Euthyphro is a great illustration.
Socrates advances the argument to Euthyphro that, piety to the gods, who all want conflicting devotions and/or actions from humans, is impossible. (Socrates exposed the pagan esoteric sophistry.)
Likewise, morals are such a construction of idols used by the Left as a rationale for them to demand compliance to their wishes in politics, which most often are a skewed mess of fallacies in logic. Morals are a deceptive replacement for the avoidance of sin.
The trouble for us occurs because all men seem to believe their weenies come from heaven, so this justifies (in their minds) some right to play "God" with everyone else's life.