Lev, what a load of obfuscating nonsense. Who are you trying to convince with that waffle?

Just admit you dispute the traditional common sense ground of morality, then be honest about its implications for the world.

Admit that you and all those you want to join you in your atheist utopia cannot provide the sanction – what happens to you if you don’t do the good; the inspiration – why do the good; nor the content – what is the good, of morality.

It's supposedly not in my self interest to be bad – "but I’m smart I’ll get away with it". Or my society condemns it – "too bad I don’t like society or the people that make it up. I’m able to live a life of self indulgence and all you can say to me is that my DNA codes for altruism". Fair dinkum!

The atheist plan for society is delusional. The twentieth century is plenty enough evidence of atheistic morality tested in real societies.

Richard Taylor, an eminent ethicist and advocate of virtue ethics, wrote,

"The modern age, more or less repudiating the idea of a divine lawgiver, has nevertheless tried to retain the ideas of moral right and wrong, not noticing that, in casting God aside, they have also abolished the conditions of meaningfulness for moral right and wrong as well."

"Thus, even educated persons sometimes declare that such things are war, or abortion, or the violation of certain human rights, are 'morally wrong,' and they imagine that they have said something true and significant."

"Educated people do not need to be told, however, that questions such as these have never been answered outside of religion."

He concludes,

"Contemporary writers in ethics, who blithely discourse upon moral right and wrong and moral obligation without any reference to religion, are really just weaving intellectual webs from thin air; which amounts to saying they discourse without meaning."

The escapism of contemporary Westerners is that terrible consolation of thought that after all our lies, murders, and betrayals we will not be judged. I prefer reality - its got style.

Martin,

For some who quotes university professors you seem to have a problem with language with even a modicum of complexity, even when it addresses the quotes you provided.

As such, I will, for the third time in this thread, repeat the basic condition of moral action.

When adults of adult reasoning agree on an act with informed consent, it is a moral act.

End of story. Neither Church, nor allegedly divinely revealed Holy Book, nor even the State itself can define a standard of morality that transcends that basic statement.

The twentieth century, au contraire, is plenty enough proof of the application of non-secular (Stalinist atheism, Nazi Christianity) of the problem of not following intersubjective moral principles and universal ethics.

If you were to blindfold monkeys, or for that matter, Dawkins, AJ Philips, jpw2040, and Lev, and give to each of the monkeys a 101-keys keyboard with the keys randomised (ie non QWERTY keyboard), and they are to be blindfolded until they have typed the sentence, 'the quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog',
(i) what is the chance of typing the sentence within 35 key strokes (not counting spaces)?
(ii) would the blindfold ever be removed in their lifetime?

Ans
(i) 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000007
(ii) No, with 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999993% certainty

The human genome which scientists were able to map out in detail is a billions time more complicated than what is described above. Dr. Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project, comprising of top scientists from all over the world, became an evangelical after carefully examining the evidences before him. So is 40% of working scientists today.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html

It takes a great leap of faith to believe that some-how the human genome came together by chance.

Darwin’s seminal work is also known as “the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.” Small wander that evolution , Nazism and communism are inter linked. Communism replaced struggle for “life” for struggle for “race” , and with communism the struggle of "race" is replaced by the struggle of "class" as history is viewed as an evolutionary struggle. True atheists and evolutionist are Mao, Stalin and Hitler. Between them they have send at least 100 million people to death.

World-famous biologist Dr. Ernst Haeckel set the stage for Nazism racial policy, before Hitler, with the famous dictum, “politics is applied biology”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Haeckel

If evolutionists like jpw2040 are worth their salt, ie true scientist, they have to face up to the logical consequences of their hypotheses. If the consequence sounds loopy, then they should think anew. The only viable and rational alternative is intelligent design.

The question 'why should I act morally' should be answered by asking in turn, 'what kind of person do you want to be?' You must choose to be moral, or not.

You cannot prove that you should be moral by showing that it is in your interests, in that God will reward or punish you according to your actions. That is an invitation to a kind of immorality, a supernatural selfishness.

You cannot prove that you ought to do what is good or right by referring to the supposed fact that God made you. For you have to decide whether you should do what your creator wants. And if He wants you to do what is wrong, you ought not to do it. In matters moral, you ought not to engage in a sacrificium intellectus.

A group of adults may agree to an action which affects only themselves, and yet the action be wrong, in that one of them makes a sacrifice which the others ought not to accept.

As far as I can see, any attempt to show why you ought to be moral which attempts to step outside morality will be subject to similar problems.

We can ask a person who is acting wrongly, 'How would you like that done to you?'. And we can ask 'Why do you think that you are special?", if they refuse to accept the first question. In effect, we are asking, 'Doesn't any reason you can give why we should not harm you apply equally to your actions with respect to others?'

But if a person is not prepared to make the first step, of accepting that the characteristics that make him/her matter are characteristics shared by others, and which accordingly make them matter; then there is no way of reasoning them into being moral. It's a matter of choice.

While I have words left. Could we perhaps drop the accusations of arrogance? Unless nearly every sentence begins with 'as far as I can see...', or 'I think that...' or some other form of self-deprecation, philosophical argument always comes over as arrogant.

"If you were to blindfold monkeys,"

Ah Philip, but we are not talking about blindfolding monkeys.
Do you know the first thing about this subject?

If you look at what happens, when you mix up the chemicals on
earth a few billion years ago, what you land up with is strands
of rna. Rna is not far off dna. Add a few billion years of
selection and you have what we have.

But you won't get far blindfolding monkeys, apart from accepting
the fact that around 98% of your dna is identical to your primate
relatives, chimps and bonobos. Name me a part of your brain that
you have, that they don't have. Even your haemoglobin is virtually
identical.

Perhaps its time to put down the religious books and learn a little
about what is actually claimed and accepted as part of biology,
taught at every major university on the planet

yabby, obviously philip doesn't know the first thing about anything except appealing to authority and praising the lord. don't waste your electrons.

ozbib, i'm sorry but for my part i'm not going to drop the accusations of arrogance. for my own possible arrogance, i'll defend myself or accept the charge as appropriate.

i would distinguish an arrogant attitude with arrogant claims. the former is neither here nor there for me, but the latter really gets up my nose. i'm fed up to the teeth with god fans claiming a monopoly on moral reasoning. this is an arrogant claim of the most mind-boggling level. when it comes in a martin-post accusing others of arrogance, i'm going to damn well attack him for it.