[man of Yosemite]

And for what good purpose did you make an agreement? Why should there be harmony or good intentions on anyone's part? The notion that some actions are preferable to others implies a moral order that atheists say doesn't exist.

[charmtrap]

And for what good purpose did you make an agreement? Why should there be harmony or good intentions on anyone's part? The notion that some actions are preferable to others implies a moral order that atheists say doesn't exist.

Well, you didn't ask me, but if I can jump in here...

I don't think many atheists believes that no moral order exists. We just disagree on what the parameters of that order are. Christians might argue that all morality comes from the bible. For myself, I would say that morality should be defined in the tension between personal freedom and the laws required to maintain a civil society.

Obviously, murder, rape and theft are right out. But prohibitions on drugs, certain sexual acts and jaywalking are subjective. Can we prove that smoking pot harms society. If so, then prohibitions are reasonable. If not, then they are not. How about sodomy? Who is it hurting? If you find sodomy immoral, don't do it. But consenting adults may disagree.

As with many things, morality *can* be in the eye of the beholder.

[gcruse]

The notion that some actions are preferable to others
 implies a moral order that atheists say doesn't exist.

I don't see how you arrive at a deity by saying you
would rather not be poked in the eye with a stick than
to be poked.  The human desire to not be in pain is
reflected in the animal kingdom.  Do they have gods too?