The reason I ended my debate with Jason over here is because Jason actually admitted his own defeat. More on that in a bit.
I had argued that Jason’s rejection of pedophilia does not comport with his atheism since his atheistic view of morality cannot account for universal and invariant laws of morality. For Jason, all morality is a matter of subjective opinion. It’s just one man’s opinion vs the next. Of course, Jason thinks that morality should be based on “the facts,” however he also stated that no one is obligated to accept the facts as facts. When you go to apply this understanding to pedophilia we see that, first, people are under no objective moral obligation not to engage in pedophilia, and second, people are not obligated to accept the fact that pedophilia is harmful to children. But why, according to atheism, should people not harm children? You see, the atheistic worldview allows for pedophilia. Jason even admitted that it’s possible some society might accept it.
Later Jason stated that people have to agree to live according to the rules of their society (which is disgusting when you read that in light of the previous sentence). But is this a moral obligation, which he believes is subjective opinion? Or is this a fact, which Jason says people are not under any obligation to accept? Ouch. Should people live according to the rules of society because society says so? Not only is this circular reasoning, but societies can be wrong. But if you can’t account for objective morality then you can’t account for when a society is “wrong,” especially when people, according to Jason, are not required to accept the facts as facts. Or should we obey the rules of society or allow people to be punished even when those rules are wrong?
You see, if morality is subjective, then there is no such thing as morality because there are no prescriptions to which people are bound regardless of their own opinion. So not only does atheism have no basis for morality, but in this case the atheist would rather construct his worldview to allow for pedophilia than to reject his own atheism. That’s both sick and sad.
Not only is Jason’s position irrational, since it allows for morality to be arbitrary, but it’s also self-defeating. If morality is a matter of subjective opinion and if people are not obligated to accept the facts as facts, then no one is required to listen to Jason, no one is required to adhere to or agree with anything he says because no one is morally obligated to do anything. His position is that you don’t have to agree with his position. That’s why I said Jason admitted his own defeat and that’s why I ended my debate with him.