I don't think so, JP.

>>Pericles – but you miss the point. In an atheistic universe no one is under any obligation to society - no one is under any obligation to anyone or anything<<

There isn't an "atheist" universe that is separate from a "theist" one. It is exactly the same universe that we both live in. You and I.

And we are both under the same obligation to conform to social norms, or to be regarded as "antisocial". Antisocial behaviour can range from being simply annoying to being criminal, and therefore punishable by that society.

If you choose to impose some extra rules, as a result of your religion, then that is perfectly ok - so long as they do not turn out to be antisocial. Such as kneecapping, blowing up infidels etc.

The clincher, of course, is that even your religious rules have adapted to society over the centuries. Many aspects of a perfectly religious life a few hundred years ago - keeping slaves, burning witches, crusading etc. - are quite properly frowned upon in today's religions. Or, most of them anyway.

So to claim that only your religion provides the one set of guidelines that determine "right" from "wrong", flies in the face of history. And not just history in the abstract, but the history of your own religion.

Because of events that have happened in my life, I happen to believe in a 'higher power'. However, I do NOT believe it is necessary to follow a specific religion in order to feel the spirituality of this belief. Much to my chagrin, religion, in general, houses many hypocrites who do not practise what they preach. The word 'Christianity' should give rise to people living in the way of Christ, who forgave many wrongdoers, and, in fact, sat down with those whom society would have banished. How many 'Christians' actually forgive those who they see as transgressers? I've sat in different churches and basically shook my head at some of the sermons I have been subjected to and walked out wondering why more people do not actually think for themselves, instead of blindly following. After all, is that not why God gave us a brain, so that we could think independently.

As for the Bible, so it is supposed to be the 'word of God'. Maybe it is, but we must remember that this is as it was transcribed by HUMAN hands, and we all know that anything mankind gets its hands on must be altered to fit the transcriber's own slant on things.

The_idiocy...when is a question not a question?

The unstated axiom: atheism therefore 'atheists' have a shared position beyond the rejection of theistic 'god' claims.

Wrong!

The article implies not only that 'God' has created moral codes and social behaviours, but humanity hasn't, and can't.

The Theists view is that's it's God or Nothing. But in fact the alternative to God is a belief in humanity, and human intelligence and the amazing understanding of the world and life that that has brought, and the awesome achievements of art and civilisation and engineering that we, us crazy humans, have accomplished, all by ourselves.

Atheists are not yet confident enough to start offering ideas in full. Criticising religion is their focus at the moment, but slowly the new atheists are positing ideas about how life arrived on Earth. One idea is that an alien civilisation came to Earth and left us here, and new atheists are also following the idea of multiple universes - so it seems atheists have their version of the flying spagetti monster as well.

Dawkins recently said he can't be sure that there isn't a God, which was weird, so he's actually agnostic. That's the problem for atheists who really have men as their God - humans tend to change their beliefs over time - Dawkins may very well go to his grave as a Westboro Baptist! Reminds me of Jane Roe's (of Roe V Wade fame) conversion to pro-life Christianity.

Pat, atheist = 'no god'. Not men, not space aliens, not anybody. Why is that so hard for theists to understand?

And any atheist who posits theories about how life began on Earth does so entirely on their own responsibility. There is no 'party line' in a non-belief. In fact we actually value independent thought -- hadn't you heard?