Replies

The danger of assuming that the only legitimate source of morality is via religion is the automatic and necessary assumption that atheists are immoral. This position is obviously false...

And obviously not the position I stated.
What I've said is that any universal standard of morality requires something by which to measure morality, and that God (I didn't say religion) is the only candidate. As a corollary, all attempts to establish a universal standard without reference to God require arbitrary assumptions, as you demonstrated in your "libertarian principle" at #269.

...as is the assumption that an atheist must by definition hold arbitrary standards of morality.

That is not an assumption.
An atheist has no universal reference for morality, unless he appeals to God with his fingers crossed. I don't know if you're an atheist, but the following could be considered an example...

In order for people of all religions to hold a common standard of morality, such assumptions as I postulated must be necessary. "It's self-evident that all men are created equal," so on and so forth. To assume the equality of all men with respect to rights and morals is a logical assumption. From there, morals and rights can be deduced.

Again, an assumption is an assumption, and therefore arbitrary. Assumptions can be reasonable, but not logical. If they were logical, they wouldn't be assumptions. They would be deductions.
To hold it necessary that "assumptions must be postulated" changes none of that. It only confirms what I said earlier. Any morality devoid of God as a reference is arbitrary at it's core.
Interesting that your premise hinges on the notion that "all men are created equal," isn't it?
I'm sure you'll want to rephrase it, but the inescapable reason it sounds reasonable is because it echoes a God-derived axiom we've all heard a thousand times.
If you want to postulate "everyone is equal," by what non-arbitrary standard is that a better postulate than "to the victors go the spoils?"

Again, an assumption is an assumption, and therefore arbitrary. Assumptions can be reasonable, but not logical. If they were logical, they wouldn't be assumptions. They would be deductions.
To hold it necessary that "assumptions must be postulated" changes none of that. It only confirms what I said earlier. Any morality devoid of God as a reference is arbitrary at it's core.
Interesting that your premise hinges on the notion that "all men are created equal," isn't it?
I'm sure you'll want to rephrase it, but the inescapable reason it sounds reasonable is because it echoes a God-derived axiom we've all heard a thousand times.

Great points

Interesting that your premise hinges on the notion that "all men are created equal," isn't it?

Of course, evolutionists cannot even say that all men are equal because materially speaking they are not. Men are only equal in the eyes of God. Darwin, and evolutionary theory, is based on the superiority of different men, races, species to others.