Dear JP,

Your assumption that ethical standards are incompatible with atheism is simply nonsense which is not based on evidence. It assumes that one needs religion to have ethical standards. Ethical standards and caring are found not only in man but in other animals who may care for the weaker or injured members of their pack or herd. Mother bears care as much for their offspring as human mothers do. I doubt that there are many Bible-believing wolves or bears.

Earnest Albert Hooton, a Harvard anthropologist studied various subgroups of US cultures. Among them were prison populations. The prison populations had a higher percentage of religious believers than the general US population.

What evidence there is seems to show that atheists have a higher standard of morality than believers in religion, Marxism, nationalism or any other faith. I attend Sunday Assembly which was founded by atheists although we do not restrict the group to atheists. Members of Sunday Assembly visit the sick, gather items for the homeless and have a sense of community not particularly different from that found in churches, mosques or synagogues. Sunday Assembly is not a faith but a group of people without religious faith but with a sense of community.

http://sundayassembly.com/ is our website. Sunday Assembly meetings in Brisbane are at Ashgrove State School Hall, 31 Glory St, Ashgrove on the first Sunday of the month at 10 am.

http://sundayassembly.com/blog/2014/04/29/100-assemblies-15-countries-every-inhabited-continent-2014/ will tell you about our meetings in other places.

From the website:

"The Sunday Assembly is a godless congregation that celebrates life. Our motto: live better, help often, wonder more. Our mission: to help everyone find and fulfill their full potential. Our vision: a godless congregation in every town, city and village that wants one."

Notice the last three words above. We are not a missionary group. We simply tell people we exist and leave it up to them if they want to come to our meetings.

I worship the sanctity of doubt. I believe the scientific method is the best way of finding out about our universe, and that this life is all we have.

Dear Graham,

I assume you and JP are the same person. We probably both agree to condemn murderous rapists. I would have him locked up so he can do no more damage. What would you have done to him? However, rapists do not always kill the woman they rape. Sometimes they make them pregnant. In such a case I think the woman should have the right to have an abortion so she would not have to go through a pregnancy and bear her rapists child. Judging from your past record you would prefer to stand near the door and harass her as she entered. A woman going into an abortion clinic has probably given it a great deal of thought. You would harass her anyway.

Apparently you get your morality from a book of legends which promotes the idea that a big Daddy in the sky has given the word. I really don’t think much of his morality. If Jesus' life and suffering really happened it reveals that God is a sadist. When I was a little boy I heard about the binding of Adam, and it frightened me. I asked my father what he would do if he heard a voice telling him to sacrifice me. He said he would see a psychiatrist. I felt safe with my father but did not feel I could accept a God who would tell a father to kill his son. The God of the Bible wiped out almost all life on earth in the flood, commanded the Jews to commit genocide in the book of Joshua and did many other nasty things. In the New Testament he arranged to have Jesus done in through horrible torture. If there is a loving God it is not the God of the Bible.

I cannot speak for all atheists just as you cannot speak for all Christians. However, I think most atheists would agree that morality is just a way humans have worked out to live together. We care for others and hope that others will care for us if need be.

Same old same old, JP/Graham Preston.

>>You are correct in pointing out that there is disagreement amongst Christians on at least some ethical issues. That disagreement however does not rule out the possibility that Christianity still does provide ethical principles and that some Christians just get it wrong.<<

What is so interesting about this line of reasoning is that it remains equally true if you were to substitute the word "atheist" and "atheism" for the words "Christian" and "Christianity". Or, for that matter, Muslim and Islam. It is an abiding characteristic of the evangelical Christian (a classification that is not, by the way, in the majority) that they persist in ignoring this very simple, basic point.

The corollary is therefore totally invalid...

>>On the other hand it would appear to definitely be the case that if atheism is true then we are completely lacking any ethical standards, beyond of course the personal preferences of each individual person.<<

Which in addition to its false premise, carefully avoids the fact that Christianity, too, is a "personal preferences of each individual person". Which alone renders the logic untenable, even without the evidence that so many Christians have been found to ignore their own teachings. Or, as JP somewhat coyly puts it, "just get it wrong".

As an addendum, I also find faintly ridiculous the question "why are we here", as if there must perforce be a reason for our existence. Does a cat, I wonder, ask the same question? Or a mosquito?

We just are.

And damn lucky to be so, I'd suggest.

david f –I haven’t said that atheists don’t have any ethical standards. I acknowledge that atheists can, and do, make up whatever standards of morality they like.

My point is that in an atheistic universe – where everything has come into existence unintentionally and for no purpose - there can be no objective moral standards. All that there could be would be each person, or group of persons, expressing their personal preferences as to what they want to call morally right and morally wrong. Do you disagree with anything in this paragraph?

The problem for atheists comes when atheists disagree about what behaviours they prefer to call morally right – each of them can express their preference but there is no way to establish which of them is correct, because there can be no correct answer in such a universe. Take abortion for example, one atheist may think it is moral while another may think it is immoral (yes, there are pro-life atheists, see http://www.prolifehumanists.org/tag/pro-life-atheists/ for example) but beyond expressing their personal views about the morality of abortion there is no other standard against which they can measure their positions to see who is right.

That isn't just true for abortion but for all moral issues, be it theft, rape, murder or whatever. No matter how much you may despise another atheist’s moral position on something, in an atheistic universe, his preference is just as valid or invalid as yours.

Pericles – I am not saying that there has to be a reason for our existence. If atheism is true than there is no reason for our existence. That is why I say that there can be no meaningful morality in an atheistic universe. In such a universe there is nothing we ought to do or ought not do. Thus the murderer does nothing wrong and Nelson Mandela does nothing morally right, because there is nothing right or wrong to do – there is no reason for our existence, so anything goes.

Of course you may not like what some people do but that does not make their behaviour wrong.

Hey Presty

Thats a shame about your anti-abortion mate Abetz getting so soundly thrashed on TV today.

Even Abbott jumped on him.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/eric-abetz-draws-link-between-abortion-and-breast-cancer-before-world-congress-of-families-20140807-101p60.html

Cheers

Dear JP,

The fact is that there are no objective moral standards whether atheistic or religious. Your moral standards are arbitrary. People who subscribe to the same book of legends as you do interpret it differently.

What you call objective moral standards are simply those you choose to live by. Your imaginary big daddy in the sky may tell you that it is ok to eat pork. The imaginary big daddy in the sky may tell you that you should avoid eating pork if you are a Jew or Muslim.

The laws where we both live over a hundred years ago did not allow a married woman to own property in her own right. They did not allow her legally to get an abortion. Now a woman can own property, can hold public office and can decide whether she wants to carry a pregnancy to term or not. My morality says she should have that right. Your morality would deny her that right.

Morality is not objective but subject to community standards and individual preferences. You would restore the morality regarding abortion to past standards, but you are under a delusion if you think your morality is in any way more objective than mine. Your morality comes from a crude historical religion based upon fear, superstition, imaginary tales, sacred histories, rituals and a predominantly political expression by a clerical class. Don't kid yourself that it is objective.