[Deleted. Overly aggressive.]

[Deleted. Sock-puppet.]

<<what does same sex marriage have to do with the 'natural birthright' of children?>>

Absolutely nothing.

They are mutually exclusive.

[Sock-puppet. Deleted.]

Well, JP. You started out on this thread with hyperbolic comments like, “it is going to be one wild and scary ride”, then we appeared to tame you to a point where you started to sound - for the most part - somewhat reasonable by sticking to logic.

Then, when backed into a corner and shown how shaky your claim to objective and absolute morality through a higher moral being was, you blow it all in an outburst of quote mining (a dishonest tactic usually only employed by theists when trying in vain to rebut evolution) that invokes the ‘Argument from Authority’ fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

In regards to your Kai Nielsen quote, there’s nothing there that really conflicts with what I’ve been saying. Although without reading the paragraphs before and after it, it’s difficult to know the context of what he was saying. But boy would I love to see what that ellipsis is hiding. If past examples are anything to go by, it should put the entire quote into context.

What really bugs me here though is that you have selectively quoted a man whose position on this topic is that morality cannot come from religion. He’s even written an entire book devoted to this one point called “Ethics Without God”.

It appears - after many different searches - that the full quote can’t be found online. All you get are a bunch of dishonest Christian websites pushing the same butchered quote (http://tinyurl.com/2688clz). So, since the Queensland state library is just a five minute drive down the road from me, I’ll be sure to check their journal archives to see if they have a copy of American Philosophical Quarterly Volume 21 from 1984 and if I find it, I’ll report back on what the full quote is.

With the Dawkins quote, all you have to do is read the first four sentences of the paragraph from which your quote was carefully extracted to see that what Dawkins was describing was the brutality of nature and the UNIVERSE’S indifference to whether or not we suffer, not each other’s.

Continued...

...Continued

As for your Professor William Provine quote, none of that conflicts with what I’ve said. The keyword there was “ultimate”, because ultimately, when the universe dissipates or collapses in on itself again (as some have theorised), none of this will have mattered at that point; but that says nothing about whether or not it matters to us now while we’re here. This may not be a pleasant thought, but that doesn’t mean it’s not reality as some theists think it must mean.

One other point that I couldn’t fit into my response earlier today, is that although it’s good you agree that none of what you are saying is proof of god, it begs the question, what then is your point in all this?

If whether or not a god actually exists is a side issue or irrelevant to your argument, then you’re wasting your time, because whether or not a god exists, we’re here; we’re doing okay; the streets are not burning and anarchy hasn't ensued.

With or without a god.