I'd like to take a closer look at the central fallacy of the Atheism Analyzed blog.
The argument that appears over and over in the blog posts is this:
Atheism makes no claims about morality
Atheists have no morals.
However, this is a non sequitur; the conclusion does not follow from the premise. If a belief makes no claim about morality, then no conclusions can be drawn about the morals of anyone based solely on that belief. Let's apply the same logic to a different belief:
The belief that the earth goes around the sun makes no claims about morality
People who believe that the earth goes around the sun have no morals.
The non sequitur becomes a bit more obvious when the context is changed.
If the author of the blog were interested in an honest discussion of morality, he would focus on what source of morality IS rather than continue to harp on a belief that he admits ISN'T.
I have personally pointed out this fallacy to the blog's author more than once; he responded by banning me. So the author is well aware that this reasoning is flawed, yet he continues to present it. This is the definition of dishonesty. He is a liar for Jesus.
And that is really the irony in all of this. Religions DO make claims about morality. If a moral system permits such blatant dishonesty and suppression of dissent, can we really say that it has anything useful to offer the world?
He banned me with the parting words that I will no longer comment on his blog. On the contrary, I look forward to continuing to do so. Watch this space for future updates.