GRACE.. humble apologies if I got that one wrong.. if I mis attributed.. I recall that remark totally.. I'll check further.
I love the wombat comment
BOAZ

Norm.. thats the dilemma.. there is only one source of 'absolute' truth and thats from God in the moral realm. But this requires faith, so its only absolute to those who take that step of faith. I freely admit this.

If one rejects the scriptural accounts, then the only alternative is the one I outlined previously (or an alternative 'religious' view) which boils down to 'make it up as u go' kind of thing.. to suggest that there are abiding principles outside of God to which we can all appeal is a faith position also, which would require a consensus, and unfortunately with morons like Hitler, Stalin and his clone Sadaam around.. it is rarely achieved in the natural world. Would the USA be any different were it not for its roots in the Judao Christian values ? Look at China, Japan, North Korea, Libya, Sudan.. only held back by power relationships. I'm taking a rather simplistic view here I admit..but hey.. with only a few paragraphs before the boredom meter hits on 10.. I can't avoid that.

GRACE !! yes.. I found the remark...and now I know why I confused it with you.

"Human societies do practice bestiality, sadism and so on. A role for the social scientist is to determine the extent of these practices in a stated society."

was stated by anti-green !! not you, your post was below it, and I mis read. Sorry about that. Unreserved apology.

Pericles.. no insults intended.

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

I surely am not saying that 'atheists are amoral' in the social sense, they have morals, are quite nice, reasonable, friendly etc.
But my point was to show that the 'valid universal foundation' for such social morality is lacking. Indeed there are come common naturally observable things like self preservation, propogation and gratification, in fact, I think all human behavior can be shown to be an expression of one or more of those. This understanding of human nature does not suggest that 'stealing' is wrong. Its a good example of all 3 of those drives working together.

But stealing is either 'unpleasant and annoying' (for the victim) or its 'wrong' (for the perpetrator, and the victim)in the moral sense. It can only be wrong in the ultimate sense of right and wrong if a greater power than us says it is.

Mr Boaz, as I learn more about you from your posts on other threads (you can see that I don't get out much) it is becoming clear to me that you are a teller rather than a hearer, so I won't expect anything of substance from you in future. My loss, I know. But I couldn't leave without some form of mild rebuke. You said:

"there is only one source of 'absolute' truth and thats from God in the moral realm"

and you obviously believe it. That's fine, until and unless you post it as an incontrovertible truth, and draw from it inferences that can by definition apply only in support of whatever discussion you are having at the time, in this case:

"to suggest that there are abiding principles outside of God to which we can all appeal is a faith position also, which would require a consensus, and unfortunately with morons like Hitler, Stalin and his clone Sadaam around.. it is rarely achieved in the natural world."

My problem is that I can see in just this one sentence inconsistencies, non sequiturs and straw-man arguments which, to me at least, are simultaneously fundamentally unconvincing and somewhat patronizing.

I write the above in the sure and certain knowledge that it will not - cannot, in truth - upset your equilibrium in any way, shape or form. Have a wonderful day.

pericles
re your previous post about 'threshold of debunking' etc.. yep..I'd be interested in a summary of what u have and some url's I can also read up on.
And your comments about Mr Williams were sensitive and caring.