Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 10, 2018 13:18:34 GMT
Religion has nothing to do with it (even though you first asked people to check out your site to see your vague definitions of god). As the emphases in my last replied showed, the fallacy found was in asserting that nature was essential in establishing ethics, i.e. where your words were just a variant of the idea that "something is natural; therefore, it is morally acceptable" or it must be a guide for ethics. So, QED again. I still hope this helps. But it won't, since you are not accepting the obvious.
You are the one guilty of any "fallacy of nature." See how that works? Now you try and get out of it.
Then please show where I have entertained the naturalistic fallacy in my arguments. I shan't hold my breath.
Argument from incredulity and argument from ignorance are also not really rules ...
Yet as a rule, one often discovers them in your arguments, Arlon LOL.
... and not helpful in deciding the winner of any argument. They are just "made up" by grunts who can't win any other way than claiming some rule requires it. You need such "rules" because you are losing so bad.
'Winning' and 'losing' are your terms of reference for this sort of discussion not mine. I commonly, and I think more realistically, see the disputations on this board at most leading to the impression, on balance, of one side being likely more correct than another. But, whatever.