Translation: I don’t have the slightest idea…

That’s a dishonest dodge on your part.

You know what I mean, so stop trying to play semantic word games.

Translation: I don’t have the slightest idea…

Getting you to admit anything is like pulling teeth.

Yeah, you’re right… I’ve never eaten crow here…

Why do you hate America?

Cute.

…and what is the objective standard for what constitutes “good” character?

You know what I mean, so stop trying to play semantic word games.

It didn’t seem to be.

Sure looked like it.

Not exclusively, no.

Actually not @ all, since there’s no such critter.

And I knew you’d come back with something like that. First, key word there: indirectly.

Getting you to admit anything is like pulling teeth.

Second, ever heard the term, “self-deceived?”

Ay-yuh, in fact, communicating w/someone who is right now – you.

Third, with the likes of Couric, Gibson, Williams, Huffington, the NYT, etc. working in his stead, Satan could take an indefinite sabbatical…

Why do you hate America? By saying things like that, you’re green-lighting terrorism, you know?

Yeah, it’s called the Bill & Melinda (a practicing Roman Catholic) Gates Foundation. Interesting how that foundation didn’t come into being until after she entered the picture.

Yeah…right.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Believer%27s%20Corner/meet_a_few_atheists.htm

Warren Buffett

The multi-billionaire, financier, atheist and business man. The following is taken from–Buffett: The Making of an American Capitalist, by Roger Lowenstein (Doubleday, 1995), page 13…
“He did not subscribe to his family’s religion. Even at a young age he was too mathematical, too logical, to make the leap of faith.”
“He adopted his father’s ethical underpinnings, but not his belief in an unseen divinity.”

Bill Gates

Microsoft Cofounder and CEO, was interviewed November 1995 on PBS by David Frost. Below is the transcript with minor edits…

Frost: Do you believe in the Sermon on the Mount?

Gates: I don’t. I’m not somebody who goes to church on a regular basis. The specific elements of Christianity are not something I’m a huge believer in. There’s a lot of merit in the moral aspects of religion. I think it can have a very, very positive impact.

Frost: I sometimes say to people, do you believe there is a god, or do you know there is a god? And, you’d say you don’t know?

Gates: In terms of doing things I take a fairly scientific approach to why things happen and how they happen. I don’t know if there’s a god or not, but I think religious principles are quite valid.

Gates was profiled by Walter Isaacson in a January 13, 1996 TIME MAGAZINE cover story. Here are some excerpts compiled by the Drudge Report:

Isaacson: Isn’t there something special, perhaps even divine, about the human soul?

Gates: I don’t have any evidence on that.

More blatant mendacities. Oh, will it ever end?!?!?!?

People tend to do good deeds based on their character, not their supernatural belief systems.

…and what is the objective standard for what constitutes “good” character?

Is that a deliberate misinterpretation?

It didn’t seem to be.

So the voice of deceit = satan?

Not exclusively, no.

See, I knew it. You think the devil is indirectly responsible.

And I knew you’d come back with something like that. First, key word there: indirectly. Second, ever heard the term, “self-deceived?” Third, with the likes of Couric, Gibson, Williams, Huffington, the NYT, etc. working in his stead, Satan could take an indefinite sabbatical…

a Catholic- who you all have no problem throwing under the bus when it suits you

Huh? When have I “thrown Catholics under the bus?”

the Christian system of keeping the poor down and then “helping” them by giving them Jesus is worse.

“[T]he Christian system of keeping the poor down?” Could ya elaborate a little more on that?

“Good” means to survive, and that which gives an individual, or for social animals the group, an advantage to survive to reproduce is a standard for good.. “God,” I wish you’d actually go learn something outside of your little box

So virtue depends on how many people possess it?

No, nor is it contingent on religion. People tend to do good deeds based on their character, not their supernatural belief systems.
Is that a deliberate misinterpretation?

by intentionally removing the blindfold that that mind was enticed to put on by the voice of deceit.

So the voice of deceit = satan? See, I knew it. You think the devil is indirectly responsible.

Since schools are supposed to be secular, the religious tiles would have been controversial

Why would they automatically be controversial? They contained no hate speech, yet they were treated as if they did.

and if left, the school would have had to allow other religious symbology of which you would not approve.

That’s a sweeping generalization on your part. What makes you think I’d object to the Star of David, or the Crescent of Islam?—that’s the freedom of speech I was referring to; if you’re free to exercise it, anybody is.

Right…but the evil done is NO reflection of this creator!

Correct. If God is all good then, by definition, He cannot be the author of evil.

You can’t have it both ways.

I’m not trying to. It’s the free will part of the equation.

Explain the “intrinsic, metaphysical and spiritual quality of love that all conscious creatures possess” as it applies to dolphin rape or a lion killing its young.

Ok: free will. karen, even the animals aren’t automatons of their DNA. You have cats, you should know that.

Yet these things make sense in a naturalistic world.

Animal altruism makes sense in a naturalistic world? Please explain how natural selection selected altruism for the weak and defenseless?

Both of which are subjective and do not provide a standard for good.

Love and compassion are subjective? How is putting the good of the beloved above one’s own subjective? How is showing mercy and kindness to someone who genuinely needs it subjective?

ALL creatures do not even recognize the existence of gods.

And how did you ascertain this knowledge?

Pity that those who do, are blind to the flaws of the ones they believe in.

Now that’s subjective!

There is none.

So, let’s see… my argument offers a plausible, practical explanation; your’s offers a simplistic, “just so” explanation. Hmmmm now which one sounds more reasonable?

Ack! Screwed the blockquotes again. Sorry.

No worries, I understood what you meant.