Moral Acts

[bennyboy]

I wouldn't accept any of your premises. Also you'd do all your research and make it look professional. But your premise would still be flawed.

There's nothing for me to debate. I can't prove a negative. The onus is on you to show that morality hasn't simply evolved and that religion isn't entirely unnecessary.

The debate woild consist of me giving short sentenced responses to your paragraphs to simply tell you that your premise was an unnecessary assumption, your logic was invalid or your so-called evidence wasn't evidence.

Moral behavior even predates humanity. So obviously it predates religion.

So no debate. -sigh-

I'll debate you if you want.  But it's likely to go much as Alasdair Ham has said.

---

Yes, because the 14-year old girl is fertile and the old woman is past child bearing years. In a pinch? Absolutely, right. Your own intuition reveals that human beings instinctively favor, however slightly, the healthy and fertile. Is that evolved instinct a valid basis for any moral principle?  I have yet to see a naturalistic explanation for why Mankind should not take evolution into its own hands and practice eugenics. Why is it wrong to terminate the mentally disabled, crippled, and/or terminally ill? Why would it be wrong to intentionally divert resources to benefit of those deemed genetically superior to others? Remember, it's cheating to appeal to anything outside evolved instinct or practical advantages.

It's considered wrong because enough people have enough emotional attachment to the mentally disabled and crippled that THEIR discomfort is also taken into account in weighing of collective feelings (read: instincts) of society. That's all there is to it: people call wrong that which they collectively dislike.