(June 20, 2013 at 2:39 pm)John V Wrote: It's so blatant it's embarrassing, particularly as you made the initial positive claim.
I made the positive claim and supported it.
How many times do I need to repeat myself?
Religion brings all this crap about blasphemy, apostasy, idolatry, etc to the table along with a lot of useless "virtues" and harmless "taboos" (see the Islamo-Christian demonization of homosexuality for an example), causing needless complexity to our discussion about morality.
More needless complexity = inferior. Secular morality gets rid of all that crap.
Your attempts to turn this conversation into a discussion of "oh yeah, well what about how exactly you define sentience? Or do you mean sapience? And where do we draw the line on..." is all red herring evasion because religious-based morality has all the same problems with the added truckload of sectarian crap.
So, can you justify all the added complexity that religious-based morality brings to the table?
If not, I win.
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
