Why Secular Morality is Superior

[DeistPaladin]

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.

By nature, religions do these things. Even the Amish, your example, are highly controlling of their followers. Pointing out some unusual anomalous examples really doesn't refute my point about the general nature of religion.

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

Did you miss the part about "victimless crimes" and "useless activities promoted as virtues"?

I can't explain it to you any better. If the point is lost on you, let's move on and I'll leave it to the reader to make their own judgments.

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.

I never said that. I said "GodWillsIt" is useless to understand morality. If you agree, let's move on.

God is portrayed as the judge.

So your god evaluates our moral actions as a judge does and therefore morality exists outside of your god and therefore your god is not necessary to determine what is moral or what morality is?

Logical Fallacy: Special Pleading

How so?

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

Your opinion is noted.

So you disagree? If so, your twisted sense of morality is noted.

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.

Denial and defense is a symptom of the battered wife syndrome. I stand by my analogy.

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

I'm highly skeptical of your claim that sex slavery openly exists in Western Society and "nothing is being done about it" but let that go. My point was never that secular morals have created a perfect paradise where no one ever commits crimes anymore and no one ever wrongs another anymore. Yes, crimes still do happen. Yes, we're not perfect. Yes, bad people still do bad things. Completely beside the point.

My point is that secular morals have evolved to where we say that slavery, rape and genocide are bad. Our own country no longer defends the institution of slavery on a political level like factions of it did 150 some-odd years ago. We've stopped evaluating whether or not these practices are morally defensible. We're now at the stage of struggling to stamp them out.

Compare this to the Bible with all its genocide at the orders of your god, rape at the orders of your god and rules that regulate the practice of slavery.

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.

Special pleading? How so? Am I now responsible for defending every non-religious ideology? My Tu Quoque reference was over your claim that "oh yeah, well, other destructive ideologies are bad too, so it's all a wash". The abuses of other bad ideologies, which I don't partake in, do not justify the abuses of religion.

You're using the same Reducto Ad Absurdum tactic that you've used elsewhere in this debate. My claim that secular morality is superior to religious-based morality should not be taken to mean that every non-religious ideology that has ever existed has been perfect or that there have never been any bad non-religious people.

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.

What the hell are you talking about?

It’s not an ad hominem. It’s an observation that he is unqualified.

It's a classic ad hominem. You're attacking the person and not the argument or the findings.

Saying "oh yeah, we'll you're not an expert so I'm not listening" is dismissing the person without considering the argument. If he is so inept, then point out his ineptitude in his paper.

Logical fallacy: appeal to authority. The authority needs to be qualified in the subject matter at hand to avoid the fallacy.

Wrong again. The fallacy is where some expert makes a bare assertion and you claim the assertion is true based on his say-so (i.e. "this smart guy says it's true to it must be so"). As far as I can tell, this is not a bare assertion but a published research paper.

EDIT to fix typos