(January 5, 2015 at 10:57 pm)*steve* Wrote: Ok, here's how this would go. I'd ask you why they are indefensible. You'd offer an answer, then I'd ask why that? Next answer. Then I'd ask why that again? On and on. There is no stopping point if there is no ultimate basis of value so any answer would eventually go nowhere or just be a personal (or group) preference. In that case any other position would be just as equally defensible.
Not true, but even if it were, as someone that gets his morals from his interpretation of god, you'd have even less of a defense. You'd having nothing more than how you interpret the will of a being you can't prove exists, which would be no more valid than the other millions of intepretations of the will of a being no one can prove exists.
Try making sure you're on solid ground before you go attacking others.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
