Originally Posted by PandaJoe

Actually, forget I said anything. Listening to someone with an ego like yours isn't high on my to-do list. Let me just suggest that you knock off the attitude. Not too many people are impressed that you went from being an incredibly pretentious atheist to an incredibly pretentious theist.

Originally Posted by Hired Gun

[/b]

I didn't criticize anyone for their spelling. I simply attempted to correct the spelling. Do you always perceive correction as an attack? The fellow before this post corrected my spelling, yet I'm not getting all wedged up about it. I would rather have my spelling corrected than to continue looking like an illiterate.

[/b]

Whaaa? You mean they are the same person??? *gasp*



I believe that's exactly what I said.

[/b]

Thank you for your opinion. I'll file it away with all the other opinions that have been given to me.

[/b]

When I was an atheist, I did read books written by those who disagreed with me. I thought that most of these books, written by Christian authors, were a bunch of baloney, with the exception of those written by William Lane Craig. I have kept my admiration for him. As a Christian, I have read books that present views contrary to my faith. The last ones I can recall are as follows: A book by Clarence Darrow which was the equivalent of Norman Geisler's "Why I am a Christian". I consider both as mediocre. Paul Davies, whom I enjoy very much as an author, but with whom I disagree. Paul Kurtz, who put me to sleep every night for 2 weeks as I tried to find motivation to complete reading his book. And the 3 stooges, whom I find completely lacking in any substance of profound thought, Michael Martin, Dan Barker and Carl Sagan. The one atheist philosopher whom I continue to admire is Nietzsche, although I have tremendous respect for Peter Singer.



I didn't list him with the intent to be sincere. I added the end of his name to Nietzsche's to be funny.



Awe, and here I thought that I was somehow going to win your respect and admiration. I'm so disappointed in myself!



Oh my yes, I'm emotionally devastated by your cutting remarks and criticisms. I'm really broken up about all of this! I want you all to know that I take great offense at everything negative that you have to say about me, my philosophy and my web site. I'm psychologically traumatized by this experience and I hope that I've learned my lesson and stay away from these forums from now on.

:chuckles: One man's aggravation is another man's relaxation. One man's enlightenment is another man's ignorance. You just can't seem to grasp this concept.

A.S.A. Jones

Originally Posted by Bill Snedden

Um...no. Positing god as a "valuer" doesn't immediately render his values objective. They are no less subjective than yours or mine. They're simply his preferences; who says he gets to make all the rules?



How can you argue that "...God can morally take an infant's life..." and that god disagrees with Peter Singer, when the definition of infanticide is "taking an infant's life"?

It looks like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too...



Unfortunately, one's status WRT sin has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not one is a moral agent. God is most assuredly not justified in treating us differently than he would himself. You said something similar in an earlier post:



You then go on to indicate that you would answer these both in the negative.

But from the standpoint of modern, democratic societies, this is clearly the wrong answer. No one is above the law; it exists to equalize. Those in authority gain it by consent of the governed, but they have no right to exceed the specific grant of power which includes the rule of law. That's the whole point of democracy and the force of the social contract that lends legitimacy to modern democratic societies.

If god is able to break every rule he creates simply by virtue of being the rule-maker, then morality is a farce...

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Originally Posted by pbaylis

Common atheist mistake: Thinking of death as a negative. God himself would not think of it as such.

Originally Posted by pmurray

What you mean by this is that you personally recognise no morality but that comes from a god. It's the same as me saying, if you show me red banannas, "those are not banannas". It's circular.

You: Morality comes from God.
Atheist: Not so, here is my atheistic moral basis ...
You: That is no basis at all, because morality only comes from God.

Originally Posted by Nowhere357

Ah, the "no true banana" fallacy.

The holy morals position falls apart from the other direction also. The Bible is a terrible guide to morality. The simple fact that white supremacists and other fundy types hold up the Bible to support their hate is ample proof of that.