(April 5, 2012 at 12:34 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: The ‘heart of the matter’ on which all your assumptions rest is that ‘real moral issues’ are only about species survival.
Wrong.
I don't know why you keep saying that despite repeated corrections from me.
Quote:I have demonstrated that evolutionary mandates, the why as you put it, does not provide a rational basis for the should.
This is your attempt to poison the well ("evolution is amoral, therefore empathy, the product, must also be amoral"). I have already explained how your attacks are both fallacious and beside the point.
Quote:I have also shown that religious demands for obedience, to which you object, could (in the flawed understanding of evolutionary psychology you use) be seen as an evolutionary advantage.
Actually, no you haven't. You've made that assertion, to which I provided a contra-example. And furthermore, you're entire obsession with "evolutionarily sound = moral" is not something I've ever asserted and so you're off charging at windmills and strawmen.
Quote:Meanwhile, you have repeatedly and hypocritically avoided providing an alternative to evolutionary psychology as the basis for understanding ‘real moral issues.’The only avoidance going on here is your dodge of the crux of my argument which is:
Quote:religion has a conflict of interest, secularism does not
...and instead you keep swinging at the strawman of your own creation. You are either very confused or dishonest.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
