re: #504 Jimmah

The first point I made in my post is that the logical fallacy in the article Charles posted subtracts from the argument the author was attempting to make.

I am sorry if you misunderstood my second point. I probably could have written it more concisely. I mean to argue that a solely material worldview is one in which no meaning can possibly be derived from anything. This is fairly standard stuff that Dawkins understands. Without meaning, there is no morality. Moral law implies a moral law giver.

And please don’t lump religions into one category when they make mutually exclusive claims. The false morality enforced by Islam strikes you as wrong because you believe human life is valuable. In principle, Islam does not share that view.

Just wondering, where do you derive that view from?