Atheists are having it too easy.

[Almanac]

And atheists would probably stop pointing out the silliness (or 'attack', as you put it) of the Christian moral code, if Christians stopped trying to make the rest of us live by it (ie. by inserting it in legislation).

I'd love to know the criterion you use to evaluate moral codes.

[Almanac]

You see, this is what bugs people. If there's one thing that the 20th century has thought us, it's that when atheists seize power, the s**t hits the fan. And yet, atheists like you will insist that this has nothing to do with their atheism. However, despite the far more numerous examples of benign theistic rule throughout history, you will still seize on a small number of examples of theists behaving badly to attack religion.

Excellent point.

[Gadjodilo]

I never said you obfuscated in the first post. You are obfuscating by trying to confuse the fact that you brought up (on more than one occasion) the burdens of proof.

Show me where.

Edit: Just before I wrote this post a three-handed leprachaun gave me an eleven euro note and told me to go the butchers and buy some A4 paper. Prove that wrong because I utterly believe it. Faith vs. science? I don't think so.

Right. Where are we heading with this then?

[MauriceColgan]

What makes you think that choosing such a belief is intelligent? If God exists, then it's a fairly stupid belief. And if God doesn't exist then you have to somehow explain how intelligence emerged magically from irrational nature. Not to mention how irrational nature came to be in the first place.

God is the best hypothesis. Of that there is no doubt.

It's really the silliest.

[Almanac]

There have been interesting arguments raised in this thread, by both "sides" of the debate.

A few years back, I studied morality for a semester in college. Although it was taught primarily from a Catholic perspective, one of the main themes was that morality has always been a universal human trait, and is definitely not dependent on theistic beliefs. SideysGhost is quite right.

Actually Sidey missed the point completely. We were discussing the objectivity or not of the moral law.

[cry freedom]

What makes you think that choosing such a belief is intelligent? If God exists, then it's a fairly stupid belief. And if God doesn't exist then you have to somehow explain how intelligence emerged magically from irrational nature. Not to mention how irrational nature came to be in the first place.

God is the best hypothesis. Of that there is no doubt.

I have to "somehow explain how intelligence emerged magically from nature", do I?
And how do you explain how God has "magically existed for all eternity".
This Russian doll type of argument is pointless but I am confident that science will come up with an answer to the first long before religion comes up with an answer to the second.

[Almanac]

It's really the silliest.

Why?

[cry freedom]

What makes you think you'll be sitting on a cloud playing a harp?

Okay then. Maybe I'll take up the banjo.

[Almanac]

And how do you explain how God has "magically existed for all eternity".

Because his nature is eternal. Our linear minds accustomed to cause and effect-based reasoning simply find it difficult to grasp this concept.

[Almanac]

No. Just some of it.

How do you evaluate it? Tell us your criterion.