RE: Atheism and morality
July 1, 2013 at 8:16 am
(This post was last modified: July 1, 2013 at 8:25 am by DeistPaladin.)
(July 1, 2013 at 12:13 am)Inigo Wrote: Well, you might want to start by using standard terms correctly. A non-sequitur is a conclusion that does not follow.Yes. I used the correct term.
Quote:So, just to be clear, the arguments were logically impeccable. If you can't see that, the problem is with you, not me.Sorry dude but putting on a pompous demeanor does not make you look smart. I'm not sure who started that rumor on the internet but it's something you should know. Nobody died and made you supreme arbiter of rational arguments.
Quote:It is this second feature - rational authority - that implies the agent who is issuing the instructions needs to be a god.Repeated assertions do not strengthen an argument.
Quote:These are awkward conclusions.If by "awkward", you mean non-sequiturs built upon bare assertions, yes.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
