There are a number of tangents commenters on the last few posts have gone off on, most of them interesting and worthy of discussion (I may have started a few of them myself). One of them had to do with the foundations of moral judgment. There were several claims being aired. Among them:
1. That moral judgment requires divine warrant (like a theistic God)
2. That moral judgment assumes some metaphysical standard
It seems to me that the first is a species of the second. It was unclear to me whether the atheist posters on the post were denying just 1. or whether they denied 2. as well, but it seemed to me that they were denying both--and they clearly reject the authority of Christian ethics.
All of which makes me wonder why they keep making moral judgments on Christians--and Christianity--that derive from Christian ethics.
If they want to reject Christianity, isn't it a little self-defeating to employ Christian ideas in order to do it? If Christianity is bogus, then there ought to be some other ethical standpoint from which to criticize it. If so, then what is it, and why don't they use it? And if there really is some other ethical standpoint from which you can criticize Christianity, what obligation, outside the anti-Christian's own preferences, does anyone have to accept it as authoritative?