/lit/ - Literature

Science grew out of philosophy taking only the good parts as a refined way of finding truth. Philosophy was a very primitive tool for finding truth that lacked the requirement for one to actually prove his assertions. Basically, science isn't afraid to say "I don't know," but philosophy will make up some bullshit and say "you can't prove I'm wrong."

>>7099252
I'd say 'the problem of evil' or 'Hitchens' razor'.

>jesus: the original rock star (elvis or something)
>the apostles / early church: garage band inspired by jesus
fast forward to today
>orthodox christianity: traditional rockists
>catholics: mainstream, pop; pope is mtv or something
>protestants: hipsters, alternative, indie, etc.

Theists around these parts, among others of course, have often claimed that without god there is no morality, and have said this as an argument for the existence of god. This strikes me as a weird stance. If we presume that there is no such thing as good or evil in a world without god; if we presume there is only is and no ought; if we presume there is nothing wrong with murdering thousands of people - what is wrong with that world if that is the world? If the world is amoral, there is no bad. Thus, an amoral world is not a bad thing.
Doesn't taking the stance that theism is better than atheism because it implies objective morality imply that there is a value to morality in the first place, regardless of god?

Note that I'm not saying god is or isn't real; note also that I'm not saying objective morality exists. Both of those questions are irrelevant to this thread.