Don, my full quote was:
BH) one side settles arguments with “X said so”, where X is some god or some sacred text. There is no X whose arbitrary whims can settle a moral question for atheists the way that the whims of God can settle moral questions for theists. (BH
It's simply ludicrous to claim that "X for atheists is themselves". Atheists don't settle arguments by saying "I said so". You won't find any "I said so" in my own discussion at http://humanknowledge.net/Thoughts.html#OriginOfValues
Again, I just have to chuckle at the way you guys argue. Instead of proudly defending the idea of laws based on the perfect wisdom on an inerrant sacred text authored by an omniscient omnibenevolent omnipotent Creator, all you do is carp that the ethics of infidels are just as arbitrary and whim-based as your own.
Meanwhile, you can add your creationism to flat-Earthery and your protectionism as theories that aren't worth my time to debate. My goal here is not to persuade fans of a Bible-thumping party to switch to the LP. My agenda is simply to let self-described libertarians know what positions they are lining up behind if they support the CP nominee instead of the LP nominee. By highlighting these differences, I know I'm taking a risk that the LP will lose the support of people who can't resist the urge to impose their own personal religious morality on others. However, I don't want religious conservatives to mistakenly vote LP any more than I want libertarians to mistakenly vote CP. I do third-party politics because I think elections should be about ideas. If highlighting the differences between the LP's official ideas and the CP's official ideas makes CP fans uncomfortable, that says more about their own cognitive dissonance than about my own "bias".
