Why Secular Morality is Superior

[DeistPaladin]

Touch something that’s harmful to the body, feel pain.

...and the reason I feel pain and experience the sensation is because I am self-aware. You didn't answer my question.

You should be telling me how or why not, rather than asking

.
You made a point that I found confusing. Hence, I asked for clarification.

Remember, your claim is that secular morality focuses like a laser on what’s really important. The scope of beings covered by morality is really important, yet all you’ve managed so far is to rule out rocks and amoebas. Unlike you I don’t rush claims to victory. I give my opponent time. But, your time is running out.

Well, the good news for me is I win either way. Or didn't you read my earlier post on this whole animal-rights-vs-human-rights conundrum.

Since you don't like to click on links, here's the quote:

The issue of animal rights vs. human rights is a complex one. I'm prepared to say that throwing a kitten off a cliff for fun is evil but hunting for food is justifiable. Perhaps I'm wrong and a vegan can make the case to me otherwise.

Now before you play the "ha ha, you don't have all the answers, therefore Jesus" card, let me remind you that this complexity doesn't give religious-based morality an edge.

Why?

Because religious-based morality arrives at the complexity of secular morals and then dumps a truckload of exalted-but-worthless "virtues" and victimless "sins" on top of it all.

John V can try to muddy up the waters but at the end of the day, he still hasn't justified why these "virtues" are really virtues or why these "sins" should be considered wrong. He has to accomplish this task or else admit that theistic morality is needlessly more complex than secular morality and therefore inferior.

Let's not forget, amidst all your red herring evasion, that the jist of point #1 is that theistic morality dumps a truckload of crap on the discussion of what is moral and therefore is more complex and therefore inferior. I don't need to provide a list of easy answers to complex questions philosophers have wrestled with for millennia. You need to explain why all this crap about "no gods before me", "don't take the Lord's name in vein", "no idols" etc, are at all useful to our understanding of what is moral and what morality is.

Thanks for giving the answer for me. Props to you, as most critics aren’t aware of this passage. This practice seems strange to modern Westerners, but arranged marriage has been common through time and across cultures.

Some friendly advice: just ignore the passage, brush past my argument, pretend it doesn't exist and hope I don't bring it up again. You're good at red herring evasion so it should be your preferred tactic anyway. Don't try to defend the practice of taking war slaves and forcing them into marriage and sex. It's a big pitfall that Frodo already fell into (on the genocide issue).