(October 23, 2013 at 3:07 pm)Sword of Christ Wrote:(October 23, 2013 at 2:54 pm)freedomfromfallacy Wrote: "Should" and "ought" according to whom? Because as far as I can tell. I'm the one dictating my 'morals' now, and not god who is a divisive prick.
If you decided that killing and eating babies was moral would that then be morality equivalent to the current opinion you now have? You can't really claim to be "more moral" if there isn't a Moral Law Giver, there's no real meaning to the word. At most it's just a social fashion and a trend and whatever people decide is moral will be moral.
Quote:Support for this claim please.
If you want to say it would be evolutionary disadvantageous how about if you stick to eating handicapped children from birth so maintaining the genetic strength within the overall gene pool? From a purely objective evolutionary stance this would be beneficial. However you still know it's wrong.
You know why a Muslim parent, Jewish parent, Hindu parent, Christian parent and atheist parent don't like you fucking with their kids?
For the same reason it would not be wise to disturb the den of a lioness. For the same reason it would not be wise to disturb the nest of an alligator.
Your god claim does not explain shit other than humans like their needlessly self inflicted placebos.