Shadow Minister – you don’t seem to be getting my point.

You say that “you live by your own moral code” but the problem is if each person lives by their own code there will be times that our moral codes come into conflict. For example, one person believes it is acceptable to steal while another believes stealing is wrong.

The question is, why should the thief care that the person he is stealing from believes that stealing is wrong? Each of them has their own moral code and if the thief thinks he can get away with it, why shouldn’t he live by his own code and steal from others?

Orange Donkey – you are the one suggesting that the lack of a basis for an atheistic communal moral code infers that a god is therefore needed, not me. I have only been enquiring what the basis for such an atheistic code is. Why don’t you just answer that question?

Wobbles – you define morality as “an agreed set of principles between members of a society, no matter where it comes from and is subject to constant review”.

So are you saying that if most people in a society agree that slavery is acceptable then slavery becomes morally “right”? You say moral principles are under constant review, but at least until/if slavery is reviewed and rejected it remains morally “right” and then becomes morally “wrong” and in places where it remains acceptable it remains morally “right”?

Yabby – it is curious that you speak favourably of altruism and self-interest in the same sentence as by definition they are contradictory behaviours.

You also conflate morality and legality: do you really believe that legality defines morality? If so then those who broke German law in defiance of Hitler were immoral people. German jails were full of such people and presumably you think they deserved to be there.

Of course I don’t believe you think that, but if you are going to say that whatever the majority of people accept defines what is moral that is where you end up.

JP you write

'Shadow Minister – you don’t seem to be getting my point. '

They don't want to get your point because that would not allow them to play God anymore. They know moral relativity is completely flawed and leads to justification for baby killing, sexual abuse and every other perversion you can think of. They know it is the only logical conclusion for their baseless amorality.

*Yabby – it is curious that you speak favourably of altruism and self-interest in the same sentence as by definition they are contradictory behaviours.*

Not so JP, they are closely related. We could wander into the field
of reciprocal altruism, but lets address your point right now.

If you JP, help the little old lady across the road, did you do
it to help the little old lady, or because your brain's feelgood
chemistry gave you a warm inner glow, for being such a nice chap?

*You also conflate morality and legality: do you really believe that legality defines morality?*

JP, in our modern democracies, the two are clearly closely connected.
I've spoken to a few old Germans and they told me that fear was
what kept them in line, not because they agreed with Hitler.

Nobody was really game to say what they thought, they would not have
been around for too long.

Yes, runner

That is why your (fortunately fictional) but cowardly god used a hireling to kill the first born.

Dumb *and* a coward.

Stuff you, runner.

Looked up any real references yet?

Rusty

JP and others questioning the basis for morals/values from those who don't try to base them on the authority of a deity.

Earlier in the thread I posted a link to a christian article which argues that the bible does not forbid abortion. You may not agree but at the end of it you use your own brain (or your pastors) to decide if the interpretation you have chosen is the correct one or not. Others are quite capable of choosing a different interpretation based on the same bible. Where is the authority in that?

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-bibleforbids.htm

We all end up making it up as we go along, christian teaching on a whole bunch of issues which relate to how we should live has changed quite a lot in my lifetime so to claim that you have a solid base whilst non-believers don't is a false claim.

On the particular issue of abortion can you point to clear commands from the bible which either place the same value on the life of a fetus as that of adults or which specifically forbid terminating a fetus? Can you show where your authority as theists on this issue is any greater than that of other theists who support the right to choose other than having the louder voice or perhaps the greater numbers (although I don't know that that is a given).

R0bert

Runner, am I to understand you don't agree with Matthew 22:39?
What about Luke 7, 27 through to 36?
Jp, we can only give you the words, we cannot give you the wit to understand them.
BTW, the sentiments quoted above were mentioned in Confucius and Zoroaster, many centuries before Jesus, as I have already mentioned.
"The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart." Luke 7:45.
"You can lead a hypocrite to water, but you can't make him think." Paraphrased from David f.