How have you validated your preferred concept of morality or being a psychotic nihilist?
So given that you are not arguing for more we are we in agreement fundamentally for the purposes of this conversation?
I am not arguing in favor of any answer until some answer is demonstrated.
Then what’s this about a third or many more other options?
Forget it.
It's a futile discussion.
You seemed to suggest a non-GOD believer is incapable of moral action.And I have absolutely no idea how you might (even hypothetically) validate that claim.That’s for YOU to validate not me.
It sounds to me like you are confirming "a non-GOD believer IS CAPABLE of moral action" is your claim.Is this correct?
The most religious societies include Nigeria, Uganda, the Philippines, Pakistan, Morocco, Egypt, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, El Salvador, Colombia, Senegal, Malawi, Indonesia, Brazil, Peru, Jordan, Algeria, Ghana, Venezuela, Mexico and Sierra Leone.
It is the highly secularized countries that tend to fare the best in terms of crime rates, prosperity, equality, freedom, democracy, women’s rights, human rights, educational attainment and life expectancy. (Although there are exceptions, such as Vietnam and China, which have famously poor human rights records.)And those nations with the highest rates of religiosity tend to be the most problem-ridden in terms of high violent crime rates, high infant mortality rates, high poverty rates and high rates of corruption.
Take homicide. According to the United Nations’ 2011 Global Study on Homicide, of the 10 nations with the highest homicide rates, all are very religious, and many — such as Colombia, Mexico, El Salvador and Brazil — are among the most theistic nations in the world. Of the nations with the lowest homicide rates, nearly all are very secular, with seven ranking among the least theistic nations, such as Sweden, Japan, Norway and the Netherlands. [**]
Sounds like what people who don’t seem to understand what constitutes a logically valid argument would say.
Always the over achiever doing Tarik's homework. Now if he copies you how will I know he has learned the lesson or just being a parrot?
Teach someone to fish?
Just explain what makes an argument valid
I did that already.
That implies the law is moral, which is a claim you’ve yet to prove.
Humor me. Tell me again.
But didn't you define "moral" as "behavior that will be rewarded" and "immoral" as "behavior that will be punished"?
