Different philosophical arguments for the existence of a classically theistic God, as well as the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ, hedges my bets and points me in the direction of the Christian faith. That is of course, just my own opinion. Obviously you have a different one =)

Actually, I was brought up as a fairly devout Buddhist in South East Asia. I only converted to Christianity after a combination of examining evidence as well as personal experience.

Different philosophical arguments for the existence of a classically theistic God, as well as the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ, hedges my bets and points me in the direction of the Christian faith. That is of course, just my own opinion. Obviously you have a different one =)

That's a great moral philosophy to live by, and I find it by turns equally admirable and also funny.

Well, I'm asking that since morality is completely subjective, the only difference between the Nazis' morality, and our morality is personal preference. Then what right do we have in trying to prevent people who think like that from acting on their preferences? After all, it's all relative to each person.

In an atheistic context, why would they be morally wrong? I know there are morally wrong, and you agree that they are morally wrong, but why are they wrong in a subjective context?

Well, am I right to say that your statement indicates that it is logically impossible for God and evil to co-exist?

Uh...I was asking to clarify if she thinks if there's no shred of evidence to support an existence of a deity. Not sure what you're trying to say, though I suspect a kneejerk reaction to immediately shift the burden of proof from the atheist to the theist in your sentence.

But that is the logical result of the belief that moral duties and values are subjective.

But if that's the case, then the Nazis surely cannot be blamed for the Holocaust. Since morality is culturally informed, their worldview has caused them to believe that exterminating Jews was right. And since morality is subjective, then we cannot objectively say that the Holocaust is morally wrong, then?

So you're also saying that when some Hindus in India burn their widows alive on their husbands' funeral pyres, when the ancient Chinese cripple women for life by binding their feet as children, when the Christian Crusaders and Inquisitors murdered and pillaged, when Catholic priests sexually abused children and the…

I love you.

I know I shouldn't be encouraging your condescension, but watching the way you deal with people who display unbelievable amounts of irrational anger,and being unable to have a cordial discussion about belief and disbelief, puts the widest smile on my face.

Thank you for making my day.

Well, that's presenting a false dilemma. The Euthyphro Dilemma ignores a third, and correct alternative: God wills something because it is good.

I think his intended argument is that if God does not exist, objective moral values and duties would not exist. But because objective moral values and duties exist, then therefore God exists.

I would agree, though I believe I know what you're talking about here, and I'm not sure I want to open that can of worms.

But if that's the case, then the Nazis surely cannot be blamed for the Holocaust then? After all, their family/friends/schooling/religion or lack of/socio-economic background/country/etc were responsible for causing them to believe that exterminating Jews were right. And if morality is subjective, then we cannot…

That's a terrible thing to do, theist or not, in my opinion. That would be akin to me being sent to see a psychologist by my professors because I believed in God.

So you're saying that morality is completely subjective?

But that's assuming that there isn't "any shred of evidence" for the possible existence of God, isn't it?