JP

Firstly it appears to me that most of the other people who have been contributing to this forum can understand and agree that they don't have a plausible explanation to your following request. Some of them just don't want to admit it.

'I simply want to know how atheists justify a moral code that extends beyond the individual’s personal preferences for what should be regarded as moral, if anything.'

I think it is plainly obvious that the majority of people in todays world don't and couldn't use their own personal preferences as moral boundaries. For the idea that morals are decided by the majority, I agree with your reasons for that not being a good idea. The Nazis, slavery, etc..

That leaves only only one other explanation. Morals based on a theistic belief. And yes this may seem just as useless to some people but i would prefer it to living a totally meaningless life.

So JP gets frustrated at arguing this without mentioning God or religion so then her creates ‘Jeff1’ (probably not realising that the daily posting limit has been lifted to four per thread) and accuses those who disagree with him of having meaningless lives as if we all need an imaginary friend for some sort of sense of worth.

That’s my theory anyway, and I’m sticking to it.

Okay, JP. It’s clear you’re not going to listen. So I’ll play your game and give you the answer you’re wanting.

<<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?>>

No, the thief wouldn’t care that the person he is stealing from believes that stealing is wrong (but should care because he wouldn't want someone to steal from him), and if the thief thinks he can get away with it and believes that stealing is moral, then personally, he’ll see no reason not to steal (but wouldn't have the right to complain if it happened to him).

So what? What’s your point? Where are you taking everyone with this? What are you trying to prove?

Do you think this must mean that there is a God?

And what if there isn’t a God, do you think we should all kid ourselves to pretend that there is for the sake of maintaining morality? That wouldn’t say much for the human race if they needed to invent a make-believe authority just to keep in line.

By the way, the 9/11 hijackers certainly didn’t fear an afterlife.

In fact, they were looking forward to it.

Fourthly, the only reason Christians aren’t still burning heretics at the stake and behaving pack of savages is because values such as the separation of church and state have enabled secularism to drag religion kicking and screaming out of the dark ages and into modernity. [A.J.Philips]

Christians you refer to in this paragraph condemning [me as one] yet in another posting raving on about the same garbage [history] you condemn people belonging to religions [the religious] A.J.Philips.

Please be a little more clear and strategic in your attacks. Christians are not necessarily religious nor are some religious necessarily Christians.

If you are not either what gives you the right to condemn OR feel the NEED to condemn either A.J.Philips. What do you fear in life to attack either Christians or the Religious so scornfully and hatefully? Why btw would you generalise regarding people of christian faith and/or the Religious?

I am a Christian and do not attack Atheists or Atheism. I have nothing to fear though.

Mr/Ms Unique,

I was taking about an alternate reality, not the reality we know today.

Had history played-out so differently that religion wasn’t dragged kicking and screaming out of the dark ages, then I seriously doubt any one of us would have been born. So I don’t know what you’re getting so hot under the collar about.

I unapologetically stand by what I said 100%.

I fear we are never going to win this one, AJ.
Anyone who cannot grasp a principle as simple or basic as pro active reciprocity probably needs the fear of a deity to keep them honest.
Without that fear, who knows what they'd become.
Congratulations on your efforts to decipher W.A.U's post (I think). I certainly couldn't. Cheers, grim.

JP and orange donkey,

I'm afraid that the whole issue appears to have gone over your head.

The legal system is based on a couple of key principles:
- The rights of the individual need to be protected
- The legal system needs to act to protect the "common good"

Banning abortion has been shown to violate both of these principles. Theft, rape etc violate both the victim and the common good, and no society condons it.

However, no legal system would ever consider enforcing abortion.

Any legal system that condons violating the rights of the woman involved, can just as easily insist on her wearing a Burqa, having female circumcision etc, because they are deemed to be morally correct. If anyone were to impose these on your family, you would be outraged.