90sAce

Yeah, that's not a slippery slope argument, dude. A slippery slope argument is that if we do X, Y most inevitably follow, without proving the inevitability. Go ahead and show me the post where I suggested eugenics would follow from a secular worldview, as opposed to asking you why it wouldn't, for the purposes of defining the parameters of your moral standard. (This is to say nothing of the fact that you made the same argument in regards to God's edicts, so your choices here are between misunderstanding the fallacy and engaging in it yourself.)

And no, I'm not equating "observations based on science to any opinion or whim." You know why? Because the things you're saying are not "observations based on science." We've been through this before, but it bears repeating: the speculation you engage in about scientific observations and their implications are not scientific themselves.

Re: "a belief espoused by a lot of theists themselves." Leaving aside how convenient it is to say vague things like "a lot of theists," this is irrelevant, because you didn't criticize these nameless theists: you argued with the idea. You even said "all you're left with," which would make no sense if you were talking about some arbitary group of theists (which you never stated, anyway).

Also, you didn't answer the question: which was it? Did you honestly not know The Bible said that, or did you just not care? Or, more likely: did you not care to know?

Oy, enough with "it sounds like this is based off..." or "it seems like you're saying..." followed by a giant paragraph responding to the thing you were guessing (usually incorrectly) was being argued.

You're contradicting yourself, anyway, when you deride morality based on "your own feelings and personal judgments," as if this were somehow different than the evolutionary morality you trumpet. And if you reply with the same copypasta about observable positive benefits, I'll know you still don't understand the problem.

More troubling, though, is that you still seem to have no idea what believers actually believe, or why. Which is kind of a problem given how much you like to contradict them. You do realize that The Bible says morality is, on some level, innate, right? It specifically contradicts the idea that morality is based purely on revelation. So the fact that you keep arguing with that idea demonstrates that you're either a) ignorant or b) willfully dishonest. Which is it?

But hey, at least this time it only took a couple replies, rather than twenty, for you to reveal that part of the problem is sloppy terminology (a serious issue for anyone who likes to start philosophical arguments): apparently you think "theism" is a synonym for "organized religion."

First, the idea that theistic belief originates when people claim to speak for God is demonstrably ignorant, both in terms of history and the way ideas are formed in general. Pretty sure I pointed this out before, yet it keeps getting reassembled and repeated long after it's been taken apart.

Second, you don't seem to be responding to the actual point at all. Allow me to repeat it:
theism is more consistent with the idea of convergent virtue because it posits a single, unshifting source for all virtues. It may be right or wrong about this, but there's no coherent way to criticize it in the way you want to.

The idea that conflicting virtues implies theism. Socrates thought the literal opposite, and his logic should be obvious: the ideas that virtues must converge is consistent with all virtue having a single source. It's the alternative--a secular worldview based on necessarily shifting utility--that implies otherwise.