So, his argument is kinda thin historically and not terribly convincing.

Why would religious people be asking him that question all of the time? He’s full of crap. It’s possible _somebody_ asked him that once but all the time? Doubt it.

Of course he makes a good point about statistics and such but swap “Without Laws, what’s to stop me from raping all I want?”

I’m not arguing for God or for Laws either nor am I arguing against them. It’s just that the laws he depends on were formed within religious constructs initially and since there’s no example of a society that developed laws entirely independent of the influence of religious morality [outside of unprovable speculatative fiction regarding thousands of years ago], there’s no way to prove objectively that such laws would have developed independently.

Nor is there a way to prove they wouldn’t have been developed independently.

So, his argument is kinda thin historically and not terribly convincing.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


× 5 = forty five

Leave a Reply