Russia embraces religious intolerance with draconian blasphemy and anti-gay laws

[Statler Waldorf]

Unfortunately, I've been banned at Christianforums.org. They don't like it when people make arguments against Christianity, even when the critic confines his/her arguments in their apologist section.

According to you that must mean you lost the arguments since they didn’t approve of them.

Good luck finding a Christian forum that doesn't censor and/or ban critics of Christianity. The fact that they don't allow debate and censor comments that hurt their feelings says much about the merits of the arguments on your side.

According to you the merits of arguments are determined by the approval of the readers, so apparently your arguments were poor enough to get you banned.

Sad to say, the only place you'll find where you can openly debate religion on a level playing field where comments won't be censored is on an atheist forum like this one.

Possibly a true statement; most of the time though, non-Christians are banned from Christian forums for violating the personal conduct rules, it has nothing to do with arguments and everything to do with respectful presentation of such arguments. If it makes you feel any better, if I had my own Christian forum I’d allow you to post there, I think open debate does nothing but help the advancement of the faith.

But as I've said, you go on thinking that you won.

Will do Captain!

Why would I care if reasoning from the descriptive to the normative is invalid? As I've told you many times, I'm not interested in arguing what morality -ought to be- argue that with someone else.

*sigh*, I am not talking about arguing what morality ought to be (which itself would be a moral statement); I am talking about arguing what morality is. Morality is a system of prescriptive (ought) statements, you cannot prove what these statements are by making appeals to that which is only descriptive (the way things are); that is why all of your attempts to prove what morality is and is not are completely logically invalid.

It doesn't matter whether or not you or I would sign on with such a thing, as the bit the makes morality relative is the bit that isn't confined to your head. Other people. Other goals. Other norms. Atheism isn't a determining factor in whether or not something is relative. Even if there were no atheists, your vying theistic moralities would be relative. It doesn't even matter if everyone is a goddamned atheist Stat - their vying moralities would be relative.

You’ve done nothing to prove that morality is relative, so until you do that anything beyond that is meaningless.