Quote:
Originally Posted by dynamite22
good job dodging the rest of his post
also good job dodging my question earlier wrt being born in a majority muslim/hindu country
Quote:
Originally Posted by festeringZit
I didn't dodge anything. Your question about me being born in Yemen
is nonsensical. Since I wasn't born there, I can't answer your question.
How about you ask a question that actually makes sense?
Oh come on you know what he meant. The argument is that because people usually follow the religion they happened to be born into, their faith is based on upbringing, not rational choice or personal revelation. You knew to dodge the question because when you admit that if born in Yemen you'd be Muslim, you admit that Christianity is parochial, not universal.
You claim your Christianity is rational, rather than taking the sensible position that it is based on non-verifiable faith. But this undermines the basic argument you made. Maybe it is rational to conclude something could not be created from nothing. But there is no reason to believe that the divine-like force behind creation has any resemblance to an anthropomorphic God, much less the God of Abraham.
Rational proof of a religion is a fool's errand. That's why it's called "faith," not "proof."
OP, I thought from thread title this was going to be about naturalistic sources of morality as opposed to received, which is a more interesting question, and yes, incest is a moral value that can easily be connected to biological evolution.