[general_re]

This guy is one of WND's best.

You'd never know it from this. One very good rule of thumb in debate, rhetoric, polemic, and what-have-you, is that you should be able to give an accurate rendering of your opponent's argument, such that he himself would consider your description of his position a fair description - to not do so is to argue dishonestly. By that very elementary test, this article flunks completely. And that's only the beginning, the basic error of form - then you can get into the factual errors. Socrates was not an atheist. Neither was Nietzsche. And so on.

[Gorjus]

One very good rule of thumb in debate...is that you...give...your opponent's argument, such that he himself would consider your description of his position...fair.

Exactly. While I read the Vox Day articles most of the time, this one was not convincing. Which is a shame, because I accept the basic point that valid ethics must have a basis in faith in a Supreme Being. (And I believe you can make a compelling case that Christianity is the best and most sound basis for that faith.)

However, the basis for the 'reason alone is a valid basis for morals' argument is not because Socrates says so. In this case Vox Day is just showing off his erudition, and that's arrogance, not rational discourse.

[little jeremiah]

Neither was Nietzsche.

Please justify this statement.