Objective Morality?

[Statler Waldorf]

Poor Waldork...still trying to convince the court that his invisible sky-daddy is an expert witness.

OVERRULED!

Poor MinimalIQist, he still doesn’t understand basic logical reasoning. Maybe by the time he is 80 he will, he had better hurry up though!

My understanding of an appeal to authority is where the need for proof is replaced by someone else's say-so. Even experts in their field need to be able to show their work. Science places no weight on authority, only evidence.

Your understanding is off then…

Description of Appeal to Authority
An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:
1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.
This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies...ority.html

God is not fallible though, so appealing to Him cannot be a fallacious appeal to authority anymore than appealing to a law of mathematics or logic would be.

A) Scripture defines marriage this way

1. No it doesn't.
2. Who the fuck cares? [/quote]

1. Yes it does. Genesis 2, 1 Corinthians 7, Ephesians 5, Mark 10 and Matthew 19
2. Many people do, and everyone should.

The dictionary changes with the times. Future dictionaries will probably define the term with gender neutral terms. This is not an absolute timeless authority.

Definitions matter in debates, so let’s stick with the way words are defined now since we are having this discussion now, thank you.

1. Strawman
2. Red Herring
3. False equivocation
4. Who the fuck cares what your godboy said?

1. Demonstrate how.
2. Demonstrate how.
3. Demonstrate how.
4. Many people do, everyone should.

Your god is imaginary so it is arbitrary.

Red herring, we are not discussing whether God exists or not, stick to the topic at hand if you can.

It's a completely different topic and so is a red herring.

Nope, it’s not a red herring, it’s a sexual behavior prohibited by scripture just like homosexuality. It would be interesting to see how you could morally justify homosexuality but not bestiality given your worldview.

Who the fuck cares what your imaginary god says?

Many people do, everyone should.

Nope. There really are credentials and a process of peer review. Christians can whine all they like but your quack psychologists are laughed at just as much as your quack creation "scientists".

It’s still a ‘no true Scotsman fallacy” because the definition of psychologist has nothing to do with whether the person is a Christian or not, same with the definition of scientist. I could just as easily say, “there are no psychologists who believe homosexuality is a healthy lifestyle because only Christian psychologists are “real” psychologists.” So meh!

'It is also socially destructive..history has shown when you approve of homosexualiy, paedophilia is not far behind.' lucent.


Your a horrible little shit, and your full of it. There is no correlation between wanting a dick up you arse, and wanting to touch kids you nasty narrow minded bitch.

That’s interesting you would say something like this considering that if a man sexually abuses a boy that by definition is a homosexual act. Only bisexual and homosexual men by defintion can molest boys.