Norm.. the thing I note, is that they are doing exactly the same thing, same strategy, same methods, as the gay lobby did some decades back. They just haven't to my knowledge invented a word to use as a negative accusation against all who disagree with them yet but I can see one coming "Namblaphobia"

If they were not pointing to the American psychological association for support, and icons of American History; and people like Grace Pettitgrew not exactly standing up to condemn such stuff..(that I've seen).

She made some comment that 'some societies practice beastiality' without making a judgement on it in one of her posts.

Atheists have no recourse except to an idea of 'universal morality' existing in all of us, but a quiet talk with a cultural anthropologist will quickly scotch that idea I think. (i.e. that such a morality is universally common) The closest would be the sense of 'right and wrong' being culturally relative and that we will do that which enables us to survive and propogate and enjoy.

You mean "people and cultures can do whatever they like as long as they don't do it to me and the people I don't want them to do it too..."?

Good morning Mr Boaz.

I'm not sure what your threshhold is for debunkment, but what I have seen certainly worked for me, so we'll have to agree to disagree on that. If you or Percy feel uncomfortable with that, or would like to trade arguments on the topic that's fine by me, but I think we will find there would be too many recursive loops involved for it to be either nourishing or satisfying. Still happy to give it a shot though.

A few minor points of elucidation though, if I may, on your interpretation of my last post.

The intention was not to outline a scheme whereby we could extract "something gratifying and wholesome and meaningful about the world". If my words are at some level capable of achieving this, I suspect that it would be at a very personal level, where an individual suddenly says "ah, yes, that makes sense". But this can only be, I contend, at a very personal level, and I would not intend or expect my thoughts to be widely accepted by any measurable constituency.

And the remarkable aspect of this is that the individual concerned might well have entirely misunderstood the meaning I had intended to convey. Or, put another way, if we had been in the same room and conversing on the topic, I might have been in a position to respond "well actually, that's not quite what I meant." Has this ever happened to you? I'm sure it has.

This was the background to my earlier comment about poor Mr Williams' reaction to the tsunami. It spoke volumes about him as a person, and his beliefs, and how he relates to those beliefs. Let me remind you for a moment of this reaction, which he chose to write down in an article that was published in the London Daily Telegraph. "The question, 'How can you believe in a God who permits suffering on this scale?' is therefore very much around at the moment, and it would be surprising if it weren't - indeed it would be wrong if it weren't."

To me, this is a personal statement from an individual who experiences moments of doubt in his faith. I draw no other conclusions, such as "UK Prelate Denies God's Existence", which was I'm afraid a typical journalistic reaction at the time. I also am of the view that in his remarks to the effect that the tsunami was part of god's warning that judgement is on its way, Mr Jensen said more about his own moral compass than about his faith.

One more thing and I'm done. I have this tiny, tiny suspicion that by keeping an open mind on the subject, and accepting that "[t]here are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in [my] philosophy", I am free to continue to learn. You have no idea how much I value that freedom.

Boaz, I forgot one small item from your post that needs attention.

You managed to co-opt the term "moral" to your cause, leaving me only that loaded word "amoral" to work with. That was very presumptuous of you, and from a discussion point of view, quite naughty.

You are saying that atheists are by definition amoral. I'm not sure you justified that connection anywhere.

To then imply that all roads atheist lead to NAMBLA was a touch insulting.

Sage and wistful? Not in my book.

I was just asking what moral justification can be found to condemn NAMBLA, and if there is a moral justification, is it based on absolutes about human rights and if it is based on absolutes on human rights what is the origin of such absolutes.

David BOAZ says about me, "...She made some comment that 'some societies practice beastiality' without making a judgement on it in one of her posts."

Excuse me, but I said no such thing. Are you starting to tell barefaced lies like Timithy, Boaz, or are you just desperate for attention? You muddle-headed wombat.