From: "Gary Britt" 


"John Beckett"  wrote
in message news:4007bc68.40106389{at}216.144.1.254...
> For the rrecord, there is at least one person here who realises that this
> silly debate is concerned simply with the definition of "morality".

Yes that's part of it, and I'm glad at least one person has realized I
haven't been speaking about proving or disproving the existence of God. 
Its more however than just defining what is morality, its about the basis a
particular person has or doesn't have (based upon their professed belief
systems) to logically argue what the definition of morality is or should be
or what good is or should be and what evil is or should be.

>
> If the word "morality" has certain meanngs, Gary has a basis
for making
> his statements. However, the statements are pretty fatuous, like
> "morality means xxx and that's another way of saying that only believers
> can be moral".
>

I never said only believers could be moral nor do I believe that to be
true. An atheist could choose to live their lives morally, they just have
no way of logically determining from their professed belief systems what is
morally.

Cheers,

Gary
> John
>
> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
> news::
> > So you would agree in a society of atheists where the social contract
was
> > kill or be killed, those in the society committing such indiscriminate
acts
> > of killing would be doing nothing immoral.  If you don't agree with that
> > then in such a society of atheists who have chosen a social contract
> > different from ours where kill or be killed is the accepted norm, how
would
> > you construct a logical argument to present to them as to why killings
> > pursuant to a kill or be killed societal norms is "morally
wrong"?
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5