(August 26, 2010 at 6:23 am)lrh9 Wrote:Quote:They have presented what they think to be evidence, but the 'evidence' has invariably been some version of a non sequitur. Most often, it has been a variant of the naturalist fallacy.
But the conclusion that natural is moral should not be exempt from the necessary proofs of valid evidence and reasoning.
Are you saying that I committed the naturalistic fallacy? Or that I need to provide evidence? Because, as I say, I don't believe there are objective moral values, as a feature of the universe. I believe that they're a necessary part of human discourse and society.
'We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.' H.L. Mencken
'False religion' is the ultimate tautology.
'It is just like man's vanity and impertinence to call an animal dumb because it is dumb to his dull perceptions.' Mark Twain
'I care not much for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it.' Abraham Lincoln
'False religion' is the ultimate tautology.
'It is just like man's vanity and impertinence to call an animal dumb because it is dumb to his dull perceptions.' Mark Twain
'I care not much for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it.' Abraham Lincoln
