JP,

Saying exactly the same thing you said before using different words doesn’t negate the arguments of others. Our points still stand and you still have not addressed the hypocrisy of your own position that myself and others have highlighted. So again, JP, how do you objectively determine who the good one is out of God and the devil?

[And please don’t say it’s because if you remove the ‘D’ from ‘devil’, you get ‘evil; and if you add an ‘O’ to god, you get ‘good’.]

Until you can answer this, your points are all invalid, because the yardstick by which you determine who, out of God and Satan, is the good one, is the same yardstick by which decent, law-abiding non-believers arrive at their ideas of right from wrong, and thus your ultimate moral authority is no more reliable or objective than their opinions are. Even less reliable, actually, because you’re holy book doesn’t tell you what to do in the event that it doesn’t directly address a moral dilemma, or contradicts itself (http://www.project-reason.org/bibleContra_big.pdf).

You can’t propose the need for an ultimate moral authority until you have overcome this dilemma in your reasoning.

But yes, for argument’s sake, let us all assume that no one believes in God and that we are all faced with the fictitious conundrum of not being able to sort out who is right or wrong on moral issues.

So what?

Are you suggesting that in a world in which no gods exist, we would need to invent one in order to prevent wiping ourselves out? If this was the case, then the more non-religious a society is, the more crime and social unrest we would see. Yet we observe the complete opposite.

http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.pdf
http://www.skepticmoney.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/table-religion-vs.....png
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdtwTeBPYQA

How does this sit with your theory?

Here’s another question: how can you objectively know that the old Levitical law is no longer relevant, and that Jesus wasn’t actually the devil out to trick others? You can’t say it’s because he speaks to your heart - that wouldn’t be objective.

AJ - I'm intrigued as to why you care what others believe. If atheism is true it doesn't matter what anyone believes,

JP- The fact that we care shows that we are a social species who understand that our best chance or survival and the chance that our genes survive into the future is if we work together. That is the most basic and selfish reason why we have created moral systems over the years.

Yes people will have different opinions about which rules to follow and which to discard. Hence why most developed societies have developed forms of democracy to try and decide which rules are in our collective best interest. The fact that no system is perfect does not mean we should give up and take the word of an ancient book which has been shown to be morally bankrupt on many levels.

The best analogy I've heard about this moral problem of objective vs subjective is likening it to a team game of chess. In a middle game position there are say 100 options the player can take. Objectively speaking, based on the rules, there is one move that is the strongest. No one can argue that. But reaching that conclusion is not easy since humans aren't computers and don't have all the relevant information. But still the team can discard 80 of the moves because they lose straight away and are clearly bad. This would be the equivalent of having a society where people aren't punished for murdering people (and they have the active will to do so, which evolutionary is not true). So then its up to the team to work through the remaining 20 moves to find which is the best. A good example is slavery, which for many years was thought about as a good option. But with more information and understanding that was discarded as clearly harmful to the interest of the humans involved and society

So even though there is one option that is objectively the best I'll admit the process of reaching this is not always straightforward. But once again the answer isn't to look to the "infallible" word of God which, as I stated before, is interpreted in a myriad of ways and raising exactly the same problem that you have pointed as Atheists as having.

Unless of course God comes down and tells us which way is correct. But I doubt that will happen.

the godless are always creating 'morals ' in order to cover how bereft they are. Most groups acting as custodials of the environment are made up of deviants. Thankfully some people really do care about the environment. I suspect those holding the gw fantasy are in the minority of those people.

JP - you say

"One atheist may find it fits within their framework of meaning to be able to ruthlessly exploit the rainforest while another finds meaning in preserving it. On what basis can you say that one should trump the other?"

The same goes for Christians. Some Christians are intolerant of homosexuals, others accept them. Some Christians are vegans, other believe it is OK to slaughter meat.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a deity.