>>81852131
>that isn't Meillasoux's argument
doesn't have to be, i'm not quoting him

>>81852183
nature isn't the standard for morality, it's amoral by definition. animal behavior isn't a guide for what's right or wrong. survival benefit doesn't explain why some acts feel objectively wrong even when they help a group. "useful" isn't the same as "good."
>some people can't perceive morality
that doesn't mean it isn't real. blindness doesn't disprove light.
moral beliefs can change, but that doesn't mean morality itself changes.
people once thought slavery was fine... doesn't make it moral. cultural disagreement doesn't make morality subjective.
people disagree on math too, but that doesn't mean 2+2=5.

>>81852184
truth isn't about waiting for future religions, we judge what's here now.
christianity uniquely grounds logic, morality, and meaning without contradiction.
if something else did it better, fine. but nothing has.