The moral argument for the existence of god is:
1.) If god does not exist objective moral values & duties do not exist.
2.) Objective moral values & duties do exist.
3.) Therefore, god exists.
The argument is invalid because it begins with a false premise. That is, objective moral values & duties do not depend on a god to exist. They can easily be seen as a product of evolution. Those of a species that randomly acquired them would have taken better care of their young. Because of this their young would have had a better chance to survive. This would have helped endow the species with the traits through natural selection. Additionally, those having the traits would have cooperated with each other more readily enabling them to survive through teamwork in hunting, building and defending themselves. This would have given them tremendous advantages over those not having the traits. Because of these the traits through natural selection would have become predominant in the species without the need for a god to instill them.
Posting etiquette is important to many here, and there are obviously better groups than "Atheist News" to start a discussion on epistomological and ontological arguments. That's basic self-discipline, and everyone will benefit from it.
Nobody took exception to the OP, but at least two took exception to the fact the OP is not relevant to this group. You in turn took exception to their reaction, and only then did I reply to explain their stance (which I fully agree with, but that's beside the point.)
You simply spin the truth. The two exceptions were not to the effect that the original posting was not relevant to the group but rather that my comments on it were not. Moreover, the original posting was an article on a theist perspective of the moral argument for the existence of god. This was news whether you et alia granted it your approval or not. We all have freedom of speech in this network. I suggest that you et alia respect this. I suspect that the stifling remarks by you et alia have more to do with your personal agendas than any objective assessment of what news is.
At the moment I'm posting this, I can count FIVE different people (Stephan, felch, Susan, Phil and myself) who made or supported this simple point: the OP is irrelevant to the Atheist News group. You belong to an overwhelming minority here.
And of course it's not about free speech, it's all about posting etiquette. There's no other reason for the existence of separate discussion groups on Atheist Nexus, but that's probably too obvious for you to understand.
Your position obviously is that the posting I commented on was not news. It is a recently written article presenting a theist perspective on the moral argument for the existence of god. This is not news because you say it is not? Are you the new lord god who speaks to what is news for all? I repeat my original statement: I do not know that a small group of members speak to what is news for 13,000. Who do you think you are?