As you are well aware, intentionally I'm sure, your statement is a logical fallacy with no parallel to what I posted.
I was trying to illustrate your "fallacies." Just as I asserted that the dress is a subset of women's clothing, you assert that ethics is a subset of morality, morality is a subset of religion, and religion is always theistic. All of those are a function of your frame of reference and arguable on the broader scale. Garbage in, garbage out.
Your other error is that, even if ethics, the concept, is within the theism circle, that doesn't mean that individual non-theists couldn't and don't apply it just as individual men can and do wear dresses.
I was reading something just the other day that referenced how people deal with cognitive dissonance and here you've given me this perfect illustration. You're struggle with it is so great that not only do you concoct this logical monstrosity, you then persuade yourself that we ethical non-theists are, in fact, theists after all.
Good grief, Chris. So much easier to just accept what is right under your nose. |
