(November 21, 2017 at 10:36 am)alpha male Wrote:(November 20, 2017 at 9:20 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: Lawrence Krauss, when postulating various theories concerning what might have happened before the big bang will readily admit that cosmologists have no certain answer on the matter. Richard Dawkins, though boasting a comprehensive knowledge of evolutionary science, will admit that he doesn’t know how life formed from non-life. It is to its credit that science is so humble concerning what it doesn’t know. If only theists showed a modicum of this true modesty!
...
But philosophical ethics possesses many virtues that a religion-based ethics lacks: honesty, integrity, reasonableness, and (most importantly) humility. You see, while ethicists from different camps squabble over the importance of happiness or autonomy, religion callously asserts that making graven images is one of the ten most immoral things a person can do—all while neglecting to condemn slavery, or the rape of slaves, or genocide... the list goes on.
You pay lip service to ethicists being humble enough to not claim true knowledge...then you imply that you know that slavery, rape of slaves, genocide, and a list of other items are indeed immoral.
You would feel better if we said we "feel strongly that" or "I am adamant that" or "I hold the position with great conviction that"?
Whereas you claim to know not just that God exists but everything there is to know about him including the fact that he has a tablet somewhere with all the objectively good and bad actions to do or avoid. In the end you just feel strongly, adamantly and great conviction that what choose to believe about God is true .. and that adds no weight whatsoever to your claim.
