Why Secular Morality is Superior

[John V]

You're desperately trying to muddy the issue.

Theistic Morality: Tends by nature to be concerned with victimless crimes like blasphemy, idolatry and apostasy as well as exalting useless activities like prayer and adherence to rituals.

Secular Morality: isn't

You said that this was because “By its nature, religion will be concerned with gaining more followers and gaining increased obedience with its established followers.” I’ve shown this isn’t the case. If that point wasn’t important, you shouldn’t have led off with it.

I agree that theistic morality has features that secular morality lacks. The question is: so what? Do you have a point here?

Again, this is beside the point. Sure the Bible contains some good stuff but all of it can be just as easily admonished by secularists without the need to a god.

The argument I'm addressing when I use the term GodWillsIt is the belief among some apologists that morality requires a celestial lawgiver. My refutation is that GodWillsIt is neither necessary nor helpful to understand or discuss morality.

I’m not defending the views of all apologists. I’m defending the Bible. The fact is that the Bible goes beyond GOdWillsIt and gives the same explanation for morality that you gave yourself. This refutes your point that religion does not offer explanations for morality.

You're right in that I misspoke. I meant "the worst of", since Yahweh's dictatorial edicts on morality have no more validity than that of a mafia don or a tin-pot dictator and, reading the Bible, they're just as prone to changing tomorrow on a whim. Yahweh can say "thou shalt not kill" one day and order a genocide the next.

God is portrayed as the judge. A judge can morally sentence someone to death. A mafia don cannot. Actually, within the mafia’s morality, the mafia don can morally sentence someone to death. Society considers that immoral. Since society as a whole has more power than the mafia, if he’s caught, he goes to jail. People don’t like the phrase, but in the end, might does make right for all practical purposes.

Logical Fallacies: Ad Hominem Tu Quoque and Bare Assertioon

Logical Fallacy: Special Pleading

1. No, nobody deserves to be tortured for all eternity.

Your opinion is noted.

2. This "mercy" you speak of is only doled out to the gullible and sycophantic, indicating what's really important to your god Yahweh. This is not about punishment or justice but control.

As already noted, mercy by definition is not about justice. You continue to try to conflate the two.

Your god sounds like a wife beater and you like the battered wife trying to justify the abuse saying "he really loves me and I guess I deserve it when he beats me."

Except he’s not beating me and I accordingly have no need to justify. You should think your analogies out further. You’re not very good with them.

Where does he require that? I’ve debated this before and doubt you’ve really considered the passages in question.

http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law...2_28a.html
[/quote]
First you need to support that this was a case of rape, rather than seduction.

Oh well then, I guess since the word wasn't around and that some humans still commit crimes, I guess that completely refutes my argument that human society has determined things to be wrong that Yahweh couldn't.

Yes, known sex slaves in Western societies and nothing being done about it refutes your position.

...and pointing out that there are other bad ideologies out there is a logical fallacy called "Ad Hominem Tu Quoque." Just because there are other bad ideologies out there too does nothing to justify the abuses of religion.

And maintaining that one morality is evil and another is superior when both allow the same thing is a logicaql fallacy called special pleading. If you’re really claiming tu quoque, the debate is over, as you claimed that secular morality is superior.

Any religion that promotes the idea of a faith-based scheme of salvation is inherently dangerous, given how high the stakes are. If saving thousands of souls for all eternity means killing some unrepentant heathen to prevent him from corrupting those thousands and leading them off the path of salvation, isn't that a good thing?

Bin Laden was taken out by a secular government, not a rival religion. Again, these dynamics apply to secular as well as religious groups. Vigilantes could kill a drug dealer to prevent his leading the youth astray. Religion is not necessary.

Is ad hominems the best you can do or would you like to refute his findings?

It’s not an ad hominem. It’s an observation that he is unqualified. Logical fallacy: appeal to authority. The authority needs to be qualified in the subject matter at hand to avoid the fallacy.