Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is taking one isolated sentence and pedantically linking to a Wikipedia that highlights a subtle error while missing or ignoring the obvious thrust of the entire argument in any way adding to this discussion? Come on now.
It's not a subtle error, and it's not peripheral to the argument either. The entire middle third of the comment is the standard engineer's fallacy that because the laws of physics are absolute and not relative, people's values should be also, and all conflict could be avoided if people were just rational. The main evidence offered is this aside about "science" "proving" the non-existence of god, so its fallaciousness…
- That people's values are absolute, or in anyway similar to the laws of physics.
- The existence, or non-existence of god, proving it, or otherwise.
- That values are irrational.
- That you get to ignore people's values.
You're putting words into his mouth. I think he's got quite interesting things to say about moral relativism, and his view point is hardly as naive as you think it is, but you're not hearing it.