From: "Gary Britt" 

I'm not arguing one is better than the other, though clearly I have
opinions on that.  I've been saying that one has a logical basis for
claiming moral judgments.  The atheist has no logical basis for making such
judgments and look plain silly when they try to bootstrap a morality onto
their basic belief that human beings are nothing but machines, chemicals,
neurons, proteins, and electrical impulses.

There are no moral implications in turning off a machine, and no logical
basis for Phil to say that the death penalty is immoral or that anything is
moral or immoral.

Cheers,

Gary

"John Beckett"  wrote
in message news:400341ce.9070011{at}216.144.1.254...
> > What is the basis for an atheist to make such an ethical argument.
>
> An interesting question, and one that has been debated for quite a long
> time. Fundamentally, I form an opinion based on various inputs. This fact
> can be dressed up to sound more impressive, but in reality that's all
> there is.
>
> As I just mentioned in another message, a religious person also forms
> their belief from an opinion based on various inputs. For example, why
> does someone follow a particular variety of religion, and not another? Was
> a decision involved, or did the person get a direct message from on high
> (voices in the head)?
>
> John
>
> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
> news::
> > What is the basis for an atheist to make such an ethical argument.  What
is
> > the basis for an atheist to be ethical?  Why would an atheist choosing
to be
> > unethical be wrong.  On what basis are other atheists to judge the
unethical
> > atheist?  Other than the might of the majority and might makes right?
>

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