JP -

Your question has been answered to the best of anyone's ability already, in numerous other posts. Briefly, that morals are decided by everyone in the context of society and community and there is no way to force everyone to conform which is why we have criminals and a justice system with jails etc. to deal with them. You obviously don't accept these answers so now I'm wondering if you can explain why this is an insufficient explanation and to demonstrate how this differs if you're not atheist and take your morals from 'elsewhere'. My first post was supposed to suggest that refusal to conform to society's agreed moral code is an issue everywhere and has always been, whether the society was predominantly religious or secular. For what it's worth, I'm genuinely interested in the answer and not trying to bait you into some other argument.

Shadow Minister -

I don't believe I've missed the issue - I'm fully aware we are on a side topic here - but I am interested in where this question of morals that JP's asking is supposed to lead. It seems to be suggesting that atheism somehow opens society to complete chaos so I'm merely asking for the alternative which does not do this. While a side issue, it is rather significant when discussing whether or not something deemed to be immoral by a large portion of the community should be legal. Yes, the legal system is intended to protect individual's rights, but the usual argument is that the foetus is an individual whose rights should prevent its mother from aborting. Not necessarily my view of things (I am for individual choice and support Angie in her decision BTW) but (clearly) not something that is reconciled by simply saying that no one but the mother is impacted by the decision.

The Psalmist was spot on when he said that a fool says to himself that there is no god. The complete failure of those on these posts defending moral relativism is clear evidence of that. If only they could hear their own stupidity.

Hey runner (love your work BTW),

I was wondering whether there is hatred or anger in your soul. Your posts seem angry, where I would have thought god would want forgiveness for the unbelievers.

I would also think one like you, who has found god, would be more at peace. And I see a lot of anger in a lot of your posts.

Maybe you're not, but you come across bitter and angry at the 'stupidity' of the posters. Now if they are actually stupid, wouldn't god show them compassion?

I'm finding interesting that none of those who claim divine authority for an anti-abortion stance have detailed the basis for that authority. There is a fairly strong biblical case for saying that god has never placed any particular value on the fetus, no specific verses which forbid abortion (or protect the life of the mother on the basis of innocent lives in her womb etc). There is some evidence that god actually endorsed abortion in some circumstances.

So where is the clear authority for bible based opposition to abortion?

R0bert

So far the failure is to draw out any reasons for or evidence supporting the counter argument from those who disagree.

Orange Donkey – you are arguing that what is moral is determined by what the majority of people hold to be moral. I believe there are serious problems with this:

Why should it be accepted that just because a majority of people say something is morally wrong that it becomes morally wrong?

For example, if a majority of people in Australia were to say that abortion is wrong and a law was passed to that effect, would you immediately say, ‘Oh yes, abortion must be wrong because most people say so’? If however you continued to believe that abortion was wrong, you would, according to your own terms, be an immoral person. Would you accept that?

A majority of Germans pre-WWII supported Hitler so does that mean that the Nazis were morally right? Hitler sent many people who disagreed with nazism to jail, so do you regard those people as being immoral criminals who deserved to be in jail? If not why not, because there were after all in the minority in that society?

You will probably say that the Nazis were obviously “wrong” while our present society, for example, is “right”. But on what basis can you judge one society against another? If the majority in one society believes one thing and a majority in another believes the opposite, who is to say which society is correct?

You are essentially arguing that what is legal (i.e. what is accepted by the majority) is what is moral. Have you never thought that a law has been wrong and should be changed? But on your terms any law reformers are immoral people because they disagree with the existing laws. So you would have to say that people like Nelson Mandella and Martin Luther King were immoral criminals who should have gone to jail.

Also, your position does not allow for moral improvement. “Improvement” implies the movement toward some external moral standard, but there is no such standard on your terms so therefore there can be no such thing as moral improvement. Moral values can only be different, not better or worse.