[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Christians think moral rules come from God, so we should do whatever God us them to. But the notion that we should do whatever God tells us to is itself a moral claim. Why should we do whatever God says? Because God says so? That's circular.


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it's circular. All reasoning about absolutes is circular for finite beings. If you reject God but invent an abstract, impersonal moral code that you claim we "ought" to obey, you are also reasoning in a circle. We have no other option.

[/ QUOTE ]
The OP seems to think theistic moral philosophies and atheistic moral philosophies differ in that respect.

They don't.

[/ QUOTE ]


I think this is a good example of why science and religon should stay within their respective seperate spheres. I dont think any athiest should say for certain that there is no objective right or wrong. i agree that the other explanations for a belief in objective truth(evolution) are far more convincing than an actual objective truth. but that does not prove it is not possible.

religons make specific assertitions all the time that belong in the scientific realm and that can be easily refuted using science. science shouldnt do the same thing and make definitive statements about a lack of God or objective truths when the most they can show is that they are extremly unlikely or not necassary.

science allows for a God who was the "first cause" type of thing. the religous realm deals with absolutes. a qualified statement even if its 99.999% probable, has no business in the realm of absolutes.