In my youth I bagan a journey which ended up in my complete rejection of religion as a moral guide. The starting point was when I discovered the existence of 'evil' through studies of the concentration camps and the truly in human actions committed within them. At the same time the religion of my parents was telling me that I would be doomed to everlasting hellfire for eating meat on a friday or for touching a girl's breast (the height of my sexual ambition at that point in time). Since then I have studied the bible (two years training to be a Christian Brother) and can identifymany of "Gods Laws" such as dietary requirments, slavery, the charging of interest, the treatment of mensturating women to name a few all fo which have been discarded. The biggest hurdle and the one which broke me was the realisation that the major commandment 'Thou shalt not Kill' the basis for religious opposition to abortion was never applied to war or to capital punishment. The hipocrasy involved in this was too much for me to take and I left behind the irrationality to achieve an moral balance based upon a simple proposition. As it happens it also appears in the bible but isnt bound into the irrationality of religion
It is do unto others...

anybody know why preston keeps writing this same nonsense again and again and again?

Ah bushbasher, I believe it is because Mr Preston is a optimist. He probably believes that someone might actually engage with his argument as opposed to the red herrings and circular reasoning that seems to be so prevalent in responses to date.

grey, don't be silly. plenty of people are engaging with preston's arguments, just like they did the last time, and the time before that. there's just not much to engage with. preston is troubled by morality, as is any thoughtful person. preston wants to ask Daddy what's right and wrong. that's ok, though. but preston wants Daddy to have a monopoly on morality, and this is nasty and really, really dumb.

to keep claiming that morality is meaningless without asking Daddy is very silly and very tiresome. to keep ignoring the arbitrariness in preston's (or anyone's) Daddy, that we only know Daddy through the same minds preston refuses the liberty to contemplate morality, this is very silly and very tiresome.

religious history proves that there is no absoluteness to religious notions of morality. secular history proves that there is no absoluteness to secular notions of morality. such is life. preston adds nothing to a difficult debate except smugness and an incredible persistence.

The article skips a key point in the whole issue which has been covered plenty of times before.

When we get back to the start of whatever belief system we hold we make a decision about it. If this was an either or debate the author might have a point. If there was only one possible idea about god, proven beyond doubt and self evident to all with an interest in the views of "god" then there might be an indisputable basis for morality/ethics based on the views of that god. Thiests make a choice about which version of god they will follow, which of that gods commands they will take literally and which they will assume were for the time or meant allegorically.

Most refuse to confront or acknowledge that choice, ignoring the reality that the biggest determinator about which version of a god a thiest will follow is the society they were born into and the beliefs of their family - hardly proof positive that one idea about god is pre-eminant above all others.

Take for example the evangelical "bible believing" christain. Years ago many were convinced that their god required women to cover their heads during worship, now only fringe groups consider those sections of their scripture literally.

On a recent discussion about womens clothing (or lack thereof) I drew the attention of those who follow Jesus and who considered that women not being thoroughly dressed might be causing them to sin to what Jesus had to say on the matter. Matthew 18:9 "And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell fire." (also Mark 9:47, Matthew 5:29) As far as I can tell none rushed out and removed their eyes, either they choose to disobey that particular command or they don't think Jesus was being literal.

Some might find the following list interesting http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/precepts.html

R0bert

A bit more of the usual canting rubbish from the god-squad. The very notion of the 'god of Abraham'- a loving creator of everything with a place prepared in 'Heaven' (wherever that may be) for all of us - is totally dead in the water from a logical perspective; a scientific perspective; and to anyone other than a completely deluded moron by a simple observation of every-day events. The claim that without this god there can be no morality immediately fails by the most basic test - does it work? The answer is clearly 'NO' - just open a newspaper or watch (if you can stomach the on-going atrocities) the TV news and see how 'Abrahamic god' based morality, via a pantheon of 'believers' in high places has handled things. The present day bloody morass that is the middle east, the Iraq obscenity, etc etc are not new. A casual glance at, for example, European history shows a virtually seamless series of similar atrocities stretching back through the centuries.
Wake up - there is only us, and whilst there is still a great deal of work to be done a naturalistic ethic is our only hope of future happiness.