(June 12, 2017 at 11:44 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: I was gonna write a long rave debunking wooters and mini me but upon reflection . Just no . Face Neo you suck . You suck at defending moral objectivism . You suck at defending theistic morality . And you at attacking naturalistic morality almost as much as Sam Harris is at defending it . And Dawkins and company are at undermining it with stupid quotes . So i'm not going to waste my time. Welcome to my ignore list say high to Asshole and Wally.
[size=small]But I minor context . You didn't address the notion that the trait Should have remained present in modern context. Because it was advantageous . It didn't so evolution would deem it a failure . So point refuted.
(June 6, 2017 at 4:22 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: There is still the difficulty of getting an "ought from an is" here as well.
It doesn't matter what is best for society with this kind of evolutionary view as a bases for morality, only what survives, and is passed along through genetics. That which reproduces more is moral...I can't subscribe to that.
neither does any serious naturalist
(June 6, 2017 at 5:18 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: However, we're in human society, not 'in evolution'. It simply doesn't follow that Khan is to be emulated.
Well said
Ok... so just to clarify, you are saying that no "serious naturalist" puts forth evolution as a basis for morality? I ask, because this seems inconsistant with your last comment to Neo.
However if you do, I'm glad that we are in agreement and can find some common ground!
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
