The boring argumentative post.

While I not an extremely political person (even though some of my friends would disagree), I do have opinions on things just like everyone else.  Also, in life, we tend to surround ourselves with people that we agree with.  This is why we have sub-communities and sub-cultures.  We identify with whatever that group stands for and join as a way to reinforce our ideals.

What stands in the way of compromise and progress usually occurs when two or more groups disagree on fundamental ways that one should live their life, spend their money, raise children, and even how they should act sexually.  As an atheist, I prefer that we all base our decisions based on facts and evidence.  The downside to this is when the facts aren't always clear or when people disagree on what evidence is relevant.  A popular idea of this is the abortion debate.  Is abortion murder?  Do living creatures have a "soul"?  Any many other questions that do and don't have solid answers.

In debates I have seen and heard analysis of between theists and non-theists and there tends to be two types of argumentation.  Argumentation based on unwavering pricnciples and slippery-slope arguments.  I believe that we should always inform our decisions based on facts as the highest moral imperative.  If we don't live by the things that are proven to be correct then we are in essence living a lie.  This is a way in which I do not choose to live.

Yet, life is not black and white as many theists would have you think that it is.  God's rule trumps all they say.  I disagree.  This is why I love arguments that have a slippery-slope.  They put the theist into a position in where they have to defend unthinkable atrocities.  Such as when God tells Abraham to kill his own son.  If anyone told me to kill my own child even if it was just a "test" (something a benevolent god wouldn't do in my opinion) I would have them arrested on the spot.  Yet, the "test" excuse is one you hear a lot from theists.

Next time you hear a theist speak about moral arguements, do this little exercise.  Try to think of a situation where that moral argument doesn't apply.  If it fails in even just one case then it is not a perfect moral argument.  There is a slippery slope.  Almost every moral argument ever presented has a situation in which the argument fails. It's just a matter of finding the best slippery-slope arguement that works in most cases.

This is a fuzzy moral world we live in.  It's not defined in black and white terms.  The day I learned that was the day that being an atheist became a lot easier for me and a lot tougher as well.  I live my life one situation at a time and apply the moral argument that works for that situation best.