Agreed, esp. the kid part.
Nor do I think that atheists don't believe in right and wrong.
Disagree. They see morality as a social construct, not as absolutes (with the exception that there are no absolutes). So what might be right and wrong for one is not right and wrong for all. And I believe this is the point that Phil Robertson was trying to get across with his crude analogy. Either there is an absolute right and wrong, given by someone greater than man, or there is none.
“Disagree. They see morality as a social construct, not as absolutes (with the exception that there are no absolutes). So what might be right and wrong for one is not right and wrong for all. And I believe this is the point that Phil Robertson was trying to get across with his crude analogy. Either there is an absolute right and wrong, given by someone greater than man, or there is none.”
Correct, and I would agree with this - there is no absolute right or wrong. Of course, I would point out that there are a number of faiths on this earth which believe in different Gods and have different ideas on what God says is Right or Wrong. Which one, if any, is right? I imagine you believe your understanding of right and wrong, as described in the Bible, is the correct one. All those other people believe so just as strongly.
Me? I don’t know. I don’t believe in Objectivism - I just don’t think there is any objective basis for morality. At the same time I can see the problems that presents. I can also see that a belief in God and a desire for eternal life (or to avoid hell) can be a powerful force for getting people to obey moral codes, and I don’t know what can substitute for that. OTOH, such beliefs don’t seem to stop a lot of people from just doing what they want, anyway.