From: Gregg Nemesure 

"Gary Britt"  wrote in
news:3ff8500f$1{at}w3.nls.net:

> That isn't the current question under discussion.  The question is how
> does one who does not believe in a higher source logically argue any
> morality or categorizations of right and wrong that are worthy of
> being applied to all of society.  The question is how does an atheist
> possibly try to claim that any other persons actions are wrong,
> immoral, etc.?  To do so requires reference to some standard of
> behavior that can be logically argued should be applied to all persons
> in that particular society.  Atheists don't have a standard, each
> atheist makes up their own morality and who is to say which one if any
> is better than the other or worthy of general application?  We've so
> far established its the might makes right rule of the majority as far
> as atheists are concerned.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Gary

I think the human being has certain intrinsic properties (such as desire
for survival, compassion, empathy) that would cause the majority to
converge on a common set of the most basic principles of morality related
to killing, stealing, etc. Most people don't need a "higher
source" to tell them that indiscriminate killing is wrong.

Gregg

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