tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post1237510058052733330..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: John Depoe on Friendly AtheismVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-17882275448293982002008-02-26T17:55:00.000-07:002008-02-26T17:55:00.000-07:00I wish people who rush to insist on the rationalit...I wish people who rush to insist on the rationality of theism would read Rowe's essay too. It puts relatively tight constraints on the situations in which theism might be rational.The Uncredible Hallqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09565179884099473943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-77783715656860796402008-02-26T09:24:00.000-07:002008-02-26T09:24:00.000-07:00Samuel SkinnerI'm pretty sure the problem of evil ...Samuel Skinner<BR/>I'm pretty sure the problem of evil is only a difficulty for theists who believe in good gods. Or are you refering to the problem of morality? Because that doesn't make atheism false and theism true-after all the very idea of command morality is dangerous (see the twentieth century). And that is the only morality theism can back. There is also morality based on natural law and supernatural principles, but they both suffer from not having their premises exist and for being extremely subjective. I prefer to stick to the current moral code people in the US use (at least a combo of liberalism and scientific mentality- ex helping others and review your thoughts). I don't know where exactly it can from, but it works, it is secular and it can be universal.<BR/><BR/>Or to shorten it all- not all atheists are shallow, and although none have read every single apologetic, the more thoughtful ones will have a responce.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com