I thought I had already cleared this up in a previous post, progressive pat.

>>That's the problem for atheists who really have men as their God - humans tend to change their beliefs over time<<

So do theists. History tells us this, quite clearly,

The injunctions delivered by the God of the Bible, for example, are widely different from those observed today by people who profess to "follow" his scriptures.

The various practices and strictures have clearly been adapted by each generation, throughout the centuries. I doubt very much whether you still own slaves, or burn people at the stake, or hunt down witches and so on. Let alone shun shellfish, refuse to wear particular fabrics etc.

Or maybe you do, what do I know?

Customs - because that is after all what they were all about - change over time, whether you are living in "darkest Africa" or Toorak, and whether you are Christian, Muslim or atheist.

Your suggestion, also, that because some folk believe that we were dumped on this planet by aliens, they "have their version of the flying spagetti monster as well", is way off beam. If they do indeed worship at that altar, they are by definition not atheists.

You are still confused as to what atheism is, aren't you. Have you ever wondered why?

Pericles – either there is a God or there isn’t and if there isn’t a God then this is indeed a universe where atheism is true, and vice versa.

There is an important difference between an obligation and social pressure. Yes, people are put under subtle and not so subtle pressure to conform but there is no obligation or duty to conform. If a person can get away with acting in their own self-interest at the cost of society, there is no moral reason, in an atheistic universe, for them not to do so. If they are caught, they may be called names or even jailed but that doesn’t prove they have acted wrongly. They have just gone against the preferences of that society.

Even if you should be right about religions not being able to establish morality that does nothing to get atheism off the hook of not being able to establish morality. All there can be, if atheism is true, are the personal preferences and combined personal preferences of individuals about what to call right and wrong. Those preferences, even if held by many people cannot logically establish morality.

Could he have made it any clearer that the purpose of religion is to control people's behaviour?

1. Even if God existed, we would still be free to do whatever we wanted. Either way, our decisions have consequences, but that doesn't negate free will.
2. To say there is no morality in the absence of God is a logical fallacy, as it assumes all morality comes from God. Morality also comes from evolution, society and reason.
3. Even if morality was 100% social construct, that would not necessarily make it less real or relevant. It would just (arguably) make it less absolute.
4. This life matters, whether or not another follows it. I value it more since becoming an atheist, because now I realise that it's the only life I have and I want it to be joyous and meaningful.

Pericles writes

'You are still confused as to what atheism is, aren't you. Have you ever wondered why?'

Watching the foolish effort of Pell and Dawkins the other night shows that atheist are totally confused themselves despite their often arrogant demeanor. Dreaming up warped definitions of nothing and denying they have faith is hilarous. The fruits of atheism is seen clearly with the worse Government seen in this land's history.

JP,

I have been following you arguments, and you don't seem to understand that all of your criticism is equally applied to people with faith in god as much as those without faith.

As no person lives their entire lives with perfect morality (however defined) then it must be true that all people make subjective decisions regarding what they consider right and wrong. So even if there is a god, and an absolute, never changing set of rules that have been established since 'creation', we all choose to make our own subjective choices which rules to follow. Therefore there is no such thing as absolute morality when it comes to mortal man, theist or not.

This is verging on the tiresome, JP… Here in and in other threads you've had it explained where your thinking is wrong logically, historically, philosophically and religiously.

Again, and as simply as I can put it: the evidence that all morality is subjectively held by individuals is the fact that even people of a shared religious tradition never totally agree. They certainly don't conform in their behaviour.

Try thinking to yourself, "All there can be, even though my religious belief is true, are the personal preferences and combined personal preferences of individuals about what to call right and wrong."

You'll probably be much happier.