Charles Darwin

Thanks for the URL and helpful comments. About your 1st Q above, I have plenty of examples for you. They are in the expressions of people (atheists or otherwise) who exercise their rightous judgement upon others. Rarely do I hear them caveat their judgements as being "just my opinion."

As for your 2nd Q, I'm certainly willing to admit defeat on my assertion. So much is wrapped up in definitions. The thread has been helpful for me in clarifying those definitions better and understanding the atheist perspective.

Doctor X

Oh my. . . .

I recall a book on prank calls made by an editor/contributor of The Onion in which he called Christian stores stating that he and his wife would like to deepen their very Christian marriage . . . do they have any Christian porn?

--J.D.

Family Man

So when I make a moral claim such as, "Slavery is wrong", without putting in the caveat that it is just my opinion, it implies that all people from all times and all places would agree with me -- even slaveholders from the antebellum South.

Obviously not. Just because people make claims without noting that it is their personal opinion hardly makes it universal. And just because a moral value is common, it doesn't mean it universal either. A study of history and cultures will tell you that what is murder in one place and time may not be murder in another, though I doubt you'd find someone who'd say murder is right in general. The devil is always in the details.

lpetrich

True, but do they seem like they had really been serious atheists? Are their Xtian versions of Dan Barker, who in that "Mere Assertions" link, says:
and

lpetrich

I wonder how he explains "moral" behavor among other species. Like bees in a hive not indiscriminately stinging each other or wolves in a pack not indiscriminately hunting each other.

Also, I'm sure that advocates of other religions could make that argument -- I wonder how C.S. Lewis would respond to a Muslim counterpart who makes the same sort of arguments for Islam.

What did he say about that subject?

Charles Darwin

Good point, I didn't mean it in quite that way. What I meant was that when a person judges, he is demonstrating a sense of right and wrong (universal in the sense that it transcends his opinion, not that it is shared equally amongst all people).

sophie

Doctor X : Yep. It's called Imagination. Love & Imagination.

Biff the unclean

No, they don't appear to have been Atheists at all. Much like our Charles Darwin here who claims to have been an Atheist when he didn't actually know what an Atheist is. The claim being that an "Atheist" actually believes in god but rejects him, or in CD's case does not embrace god in the proper manner. CD repeatedly made the claim that Atheists are believers of some sort.
To me it seems like a person who claims to be a teetotaler because they only drink beer and wine but will never touch a martini.

Family Man

Then you can't call it a universal morality.

Think of the implications here. If morality came from God, we'd all have the same sense of morality at all times and in all places. That clearly isn't the case, so morality isn't from God. I'll agree it is transcedent to any one person, but that doesn't mean it comes from God.

Hence, since much of Lewis's argument appears to be based on a false premise, isn't it surprising that skeptics would reject him as a lightweight?

WinAce

Interestingly, all the "universal moral laws", such as "thou shalt not murder", can be traced to something very beneficial or actually required for the success of the human race. You just can't have a successful, long-term stable society where there are no repercussions for anyone killing anyone on a whim.

Conversely, the moral laws most usually credited to God's will alone, such as prohibitions on homosexuality or wearing multi-fabric clothing, enjoy a wide range of opinion depending on culture.

Almost like what one would expect if morality was an emergent phenomenon derived from interacting self-aware beings in a social network, I might add. I wonder why that is...