The article was long (second one on morality), but the man does two things very quickly- he butchers the Euthyphro dilemma and he uses Vox Day as a source for an essay on morality.You can take a look at how he misuses the Euthyphro dilemma, but using Vox Day to tlak about morality? This is a man who said thishttp://voxday.blogspot.com/2007/02/mailvox-sharpening-knives.htmlIs it wrong to reject him out of hand? From an evidentary view point, yes. However, there are a limited number of hours in the day...
These sorts of myths about Christians and Christianity are ingrained into the atheist psyche. It's a part of their anti-religious dogma. No matter how well and how many times they are refuted, these atheists will desperately cling to it instead of admitting they are wrong, much less apologizing for being wrong.
Hi Mariano,Can you explain what you mean by the second sentence in this snippet?:He admits that he is relying on personal opinion and therefore he defines, categorizes and reacts to the “atrocity” based on his opinion. If someone did not think that these were atrocities then they would not be.Do you mean that they wouldn't be atrocities to Walker? To the "someone"? You can't mean that they wouldn't be atrocities in some objective sense, since that presupposes moral objectivism, right?And while we're at it, let me ask something else that's been bugging me. What is your actual practical concern? What scenario do you actually anticipate in which moral relativism would lead to an undesirable outcome in the real world today?
Certainly Mr. Walker was in error in his references to "Flat Earth" . . . then again, we might remember Galileo and Bruno, and others were in fact persecuted. Not for the Flat Earth notion, but for other ideas which have since been accepted as true (at least by most thinking people). That is, the Copernican understanding of the solar system. The important thing to note is that they were persecuted because they countered religion-based world views. I'm at least assuming enough honesty by the faithful to admit that regardless of the cause, persecution did take place. Then again, I'm often disappointed.
on intrinsic immorality of incest - don'you think your corresponded could not articulate the origin of his morality on the topic because it is inherent to our genetic predisposition for the continuation of the species that we not copulate with our own blood? you've termed this predisposition morality from divine law, where I term it genetic law surfacing as morality....maybe not looking at everything through religious glasses might provide some answers
@oldskeptic; Actually, they countered the ruling elite's views. Just because the ruling elite claimed to be of a particular faith doesn't make it so.
Oldskeptic:Gallileo was placed under house arrest. He was never tortured. Also he carried on with his research funded by the papacy and could even leave the house to visit his sister in a convent.Bruno was killed for holding erroneous beliefs about the trinity which is the main reason he was even tried at all.