(June 21, 2013 at 2:46 pm)John V Wrote: Such as animal rights, as I went on to say.Religious-based morality doesn't have to deal with the subject of animal rights?
This is the perfect example of how religious-based morality has all the same conundrums with a bunch of added crap.
Quote:Are you seriously claiming that no secular societies have discriminated against gays?What would be the secular justification for calling homosexuality "immoral"? You'd be on shaky ground at best. Only the religious GodWillsIt provides a solid basis.
Quote:By keeping it simple, you mean that you want to focus on the one part of your four-part argument which I’m not particularly protesting.
By keeping it simple, I mean focusing on the body of argument #1, which is religious morality has all this extra crap and secular morality doesn't. If you agree, then just concede I'm correct on point #1 and move on.
Quote:Here’s a fun analogy...***Strawman ensues***
Quote:I was wondering when you’d fall into circular reasoning.*psst* when you accuse someone of committing a logical fallacy, you have to actually point out where and how.
Quote:Appeal to authority fallacy.Only if I were to say, "it's true because Einstein said it's true". Quoting someone who put it so well is not an appeal to authority.
However, you go ahead and try to argue that extra needless complexity is not a bad thing. Don't let me discourage you from hanging yourself.
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
