JP,

That was a good example illustrating the difference between rationality (how to “properly”, think, analyse your situation, argue) and morality (how to “properly” act).

In the first case the ultimate aim is “truthfulness”, in the second the ultimate aim is “goodness”. Rationality is more than mere logic but should NEVER contradict it; morality or “natural law” - a product of evolution (whether or not seen as guided by God) - is more than lawfulness but COULD contradict it (e. g. in Nazi Germany). Thoughts cannot be immoral, but can lead towards immoral acts, and acts cannot be irrational but can be the result of irrational thinking (assessing the situation prior to action).

I think most people can distinguish between rational norms (how to think) and moral norms (how to act), whether theist or atheist. What they actually consider as rational (except for mere rules of formal logic) is a different thing, and so is the question of what motivates people to accept this or that action as moral or immoral.

RObert – no, I don’t think that the atheist and the theist face the same problem. I do agree with you though that the variety of different theistic beliefs can be confusing and make it difficult to know if any of them are true. But theism generally holds that there is a good God who has created us and given us at least some idea of what the standards of right and wrong are.

Atheism though has no basis for establishing what is right or wrong, beyond each person’s individual subjective preferences.

Thus, if some version of theism is true it may at least be possible to establish what is right and wrong, whereas if atheism is true, there is no objective right or wrong that can ever be established.

Stezza – I would say the same to you as I’ve written above to RObert. I’m not claiming that theists don’t have to try and work out what is right and wrong, but if theism is true that is at least something that is possible to achieve. If atheism is true then there is no possible basis for arriving at any objective morality. One atheist can say they believe abortion is wrong and another can say they believe it is right and they can’t get beyond that because there are no objective moral standards in an atheistic universe.

Shadow Minister – don’t you see your problem – you want to say the young man who wanted to murder his grandmother for the inheritance is insane for thinking that way. However, I’m quite sure he would not get off in court if he pled insanity. He is not insane, he just has different moral values to you and if you are both atheists, who are you to say that his values are wrong and yours are right?

JP may I draw your attention to the fact that there are thiests in the world at the moment who's intepretation of what their god wants includes the kidnapping of hundreds of school girls, the sale of them as slaves or brides etc. Others of their faith disagree but that just highlights how subjective the appeal to a god for authority is.

There have also been a bunch of attrocities and abuses by christian thiests (as there have been attrocities and abuses by athiests).

Appeals to absolutes have to work all the way, not stop at some arbitrary point that is convenient to the person trying to use that appeal. You don't have that foundation no matter how much you may wish it was so.

R0bert

Yeah, but whose definition of “good”, JP?

<<...theism generally holds that there is a good God who has created us and given us at least some idea of what the standards of right and wrong are.>>

Who’s to say that your idea of what is good, is any better than mine?

Theists can argue this ‘til they’re blue in the face, but at the end of the day, we all rely on the same faculties to determine what is moral and what is not. Holy books are too contradictory to serve as any source of reference without having to exercise the same level discretion that you mock atheists for having to exercise.

So not only are you faced with the same “dilemmas” that we atheists are faced with, but you have the additional problem of having to interpret ambiguous old writings. You are adding an unnecessary layer of complexity.

Asserting that a god is up there somewhere to back your interpretation of what he/she thinks, is meaningless.

RObert, AJ Philips – the fact that some professing theists have done things that many people find immoral does not thereby establish that there can be no God. People are largely free to believe, and do, whatever they want, regardless of whether what they do and say coincides with what God (should God exist)may want. There may be a real God but perhaps very poor and even very few actual followers of God.

It seems to be conceded by the atheists on this thread that if atheism is true then all moral claims are merely personal expressions of preference (as no one has expressed an argument to show that this is not so). This being the case, it follows that: (1) there are no objective moral standards against which we can measure whether a particular moral claim is right or wrong; (2) there can be no meaningful moral discussion, as one person can say ‘I believe behaviour A is moral’ and another person can say ‘I believe behaviour A is immoral’ and there is no way to establish which claim is true (and really neither claim is true, beyond the individual asserting the claim, because there is no objective moral standard); (3) there can be no moral progress or regress because there is no objective standard to which we can draw closer or move away from (Nelson Mandela did not help make this world a better place and neither did Pol Pot make it any worse).

These seem to be amazingly significant things for the atheist to have to concede. And many atheists don’t really seem to appreciate where they professed beliefs lead. They will express anger at people for things that are said and done, when really if they are going to be entirely rational about it, people are just expressing a different preference in life to them and why shouldn’t they? Instead of getting annoyed at people, why not just calmly say, I prefer this, and you prefer that, and leave it at that?

Whoever suggested that, JP?

<<the fact that some professing theists have done things that many people find immoral does not thereby establish that there can be no God.>>

No, but what it does do, however, is show how arbitrary and subjective having an ultimate moral authority is.

You have not addressed the problems with your reasoning that we have pointed to. You have bypassed it with some strange interpretation of what we were saying and then proceeded to go off on an already discredited tangent.