I think i shall leave the recent theology discussion lie for a little while. Think of it as a pause in between speech, a caesura if you will, rather than a cessation. I think my point has been received, if one drops the idea of God one gives up the idea of an objective moral basis. Given the lack of an objective moral basis the notion or morality must be abandoned. We arrive at the situation that the Marquis de Sade described, “What is, is right.” Thus, while one may have opinions about what he or she might prefer as a person, there is no legitimate way to impose these feelings on other people. The people might (and generally do) vote on a system of laws to regulate behaviour but these laws are arbitrary and do not relate to any standard (for no such standard exists). While one might have personal feelings against George Bush’s war one has no right to say that George Bush is morally wrong, or ‘wrong’ in the sense of morals. One can, however, complain that he has contravened the agreed standards of international law.
My point all along has really been that though these are the logical consequences of the atheistic worldview very few people live as if they believed this. Most people, atheists included, think and act as if it is ‘wrong’ to murder babies. Even Jean Paul Sartre, the great French existentialist, spoke out against the French imperial activity in Algeria because he thought it was morally wrong. To those who live true to their worldview I say well done, to those who say there is no God and then live as if there is one, I ask them why.
Still, let us leave it at that, for the time being. I suppose I still have a few things that Kevin mentioned to address but whoever said I had to be exhaustive? I feel at this time that to continue on the same discussion would lead all of us in circles.