But they are not doing it because they are Christians. The vast majority of Christians don’t do it, and atheist americans do it too. This is just a quirk of america, that is religiously coloured because that is what america is like.

And the comment I responded to was talking about people who circumcise for religious reasons.

So it is you, who is wrong.

Wow. If I was prompted to come up with the stupidest notion right now, I would hardly make up something dumber.

The Jews at least had a normal reason to do this(hygiene), this is ridiculous. Do you still do this?

But Americans that circumcise(which I did not know happened), don’t do it for religious reasons. And Muslims don’t believe in the story depicted, so this by elimination only applies to Jews.

Believe what?

It is not. There are enough Jews that don’t support the actions of Israel for your comment to be definetly antisemitic.

But the only religion that holds to this story of Abraham, and circumsises is Judaism.

Muslims reject the Torah, or the Old Testament, and Christians are under no obligation to circumcise so this only applies to Jews.

And Americans do it because they are weird for cultural reasons.

I would say that Christians are not required to circumcise themselves, since jewish law only applied to Jews before Christ, and it actually made sense to do so back then, for hygienic reasons.

I was unaware Americans do this, but first I would say that that practice is clearly not connected to Abraham, that is portrayed here, in any way, even if what you say is correct. And it is a cultural practice, not a relgious one, and even if it was, as you say, motivated by religious views.

But I… am not sure how circumcision would prevent anyone from touching himself, so I am highly sceptical of that claim.

Finally, I will say that it would be unfair to transpose the beliefs of an obscure american sect of Christianity on the entire Christendom. Especially since there is literally no religious requirement for Christians to do so.

That seems somewhat antisemitic, if you ask me. Not all jews are anti-trans.

Well, Camus and Sartre are not exactly about finding meaning, but dealing with the world with no inherent meaning.

No advice here, but I suppose it would be rather difficult to argue for objective meaning of life under atheism, which seems prevalent here on lemmy, so I would consider the feasibility of the existentialist project, in creating meaning or living with the condradiction between our desire of meaning and the meaningless world.

Could say the same to you.

If morality is subjective, all morality is based on nothing, that is rather the point.

I am not comparing “living according to a manufactured moral code” to the Higgs boson, this is both a misrepresentation of my argument and a category error.

I seem to be perfectly able to do so: objective morality is supernatural, but what makes you think it is reason enough to dismiss it?

We assume some things to exist without proof all the time, and I am not even talking about how we assume the external world exists, but about things like dark matter and the Higgs bosom. Why is an assumption of the existence of a supernatural thing different in terms of credibility from an assumption of the existence of something that exists in nature.

So lynchings are fine, then?

It’s not better, my point is yours doesn’t exist. It is also the exact same moral subjectivism.

I understand that if moral subjectivism is correct, morality is subjective. But you can’t just say that analytically true statement over and over again, and expect it to work as an argument. How can you be sure it is subjective?

Why is the subjectivity of morality the default assumption? It is a claim, is it not?

Lynching is bad, but there are exceptions

If you say lynchings are bad, that means that justice should be delivered by the state. But you seem to think, that it does not matter who does it. It seems like a contradiction.

But you seem pretty certain morality is subjective, which is not only unproven, but goes against our intuitions.

You seem to think I am comparing objective religious morality with subjective secular morality. This is not the case. I am comparing two accounts of morality, according to one of which morality is independent of subjectivity, and is singular, and according to another all moral views held by all people are subjective.

Your morality is based on “doing what is best for society”. But are you capable of constructing a rational deductive argument with sound propositions that proves that this is, indeed, what morality is? If not, in what way is your morality better than religious morality. Both are “preferences”, according to you, that are not based on rationality.

What is it if not an alternative? Morality is either objective or subjective. You believe it is the latter, but how can you be so sure you are correct?

I am simply saying that it is a very unnatural way to think about morality, and this is why my argument works. Some people, I believe, would rather say that God is real than that morality is subjective. You can say the opposite of that, of course, but this is how philosophical arguments work.

I don’t see the problem you are referring to.

I am so sorry. I understand now I was very immoral when I said that lynchings are bad. I now see that due process is pointless, and we should just kill people we believe to be evil willy nilly.

I understand that I follow morality. The question is, what is morality. If you are correct, it is subjective. If you are wrong, it isn’t. I am not sure what you are trying to say.

Such an account of morality is indeed insufficient for some people. But this is the argument: you have to accept moral subjectivism if you reject God.

Because the argument is based on what morality is. And this is a question about what it is.