"The typical polytheist religions tended ( if my understanding is correct ) not to have such a clear cut approach to right and wrong."

Kenny,

That's probably true, but the polytheists used to do some pretty bad things to one another in the name of, or inspired by, their God or Gods. What's worse, this or the "Abrahamic" way of doing things? It really depends on the times/circumstances.

Probably the ultimate bad act was what the (polytheistic) Romans did to the Jews and Jesus.

Someone help me out here. I’m trying to find a qualitative difference between this article, and pieces like Peter Sellick’s “The impossibility of atheism” http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8444&page=0

Both articles make improbable claims based on dodgy premises. In the present case it’s “The Abrahamic system of thought is based on the concept of right and wrong.” I can think of lots of biblical examples exploring conflicts between two “right” actions: Abraham’s interrupted sacrifice of his son Isaac, and Jesus’ intervention in a public stoning, to name both a New Testament and an Old Testament example. At best, this assertion needs a lot more support than is provided here.

Sellick’s article, on the other hand, is built on the premise that atheists don’t disbelieve in the same god that christians believe in: “the God that the atheists do not believe in is not the God that Christians worship.” Eh?

The silly unsupported claims in both articles are equally stupefying:

Young: “It is probably too late to stop the process in Australia because Abrahamic thinking has infected the Indigenous population to the extent that it cannot recover.”

Sellick: “To be a real atheist would be to find that this man Jesus is the enemy of life; to have a character that is pure darkness.”

Both articles have provocative titles, purport to argue from logical principles and take an unproductive confrontational stance towards those whose belief system is different from the author’s.

The only real difference I can find between the two is the quality of the writing. Sellick’s lofty prose reads like it’s been bouncing around the vaults of a cathedral or two. Young’s is still skulking in the crypt.

Ultimately though, the truest truth is in David Young’s article: “This is the reason we so often go round and round in circles.”

Indeed.

O Shite. Being compared to Sells. I will have to watch that.

O Shite indeed, Daviy.

Speaking of "abrahamic" right and wrong I quite like this reference and what it reveals by a (at least in some circles) influential christian "philosopher".

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=682#more-682

Ho Hum- Alden Swan makes a very pertinent comment there:

"If someone is completely satisfied that God doesn't exist, then talking about his non-existent morality is a little like a guy who spends all his time talking about the girl who just dumped him; it sounds a bit obsessive. Or, it's possible that some may be looking for moral reasons to reject a belief in God, in which case it would seem that morality is more of an issue than they admit."

He's right.

But, after a quick skim of the article and then the comments, it completely confirmed my view that a lot of atheists (not all, but a lot) hate the idea of God because they can't stand the idea of a being greater than themself. They like being the be all and end all and can't stand the idea of serving someone greater than they