The cricket, she chirps

Bobert expresses the ontological argument for a universally applicable atheist morality, sparking the obvious response:

Get a grip… even athiests and us agnostics can have a real solid understanding on what is right and what is wrong.

Okay, that’s fine, but do explain how. First give me a single example of what is right, then one of what is wrong.

Second, explain why the first thing is right, then why the second thing is wrong.

I hope you won’t equivocate or go silent, as this should be trivial for any atheist or agnostic with a real solid understanding of right and wrong. Any Christian, even a barely literate one, is easily capable of doing this.

And, as one has come to expect, there is still no response to this point. Unfortunate, but hardly surprising. Garlic Powder, on the other hand, at least tries to answer the question:

Because I would not want to be raped, so it would be wrong for me to rape someone else. Most laws can be traced back to the golden rule. For the religious, please don’t cite any more examples of God’s laws that are really nothing more than the golden rule.

Of course, this fails the universal applicability requirement twice over, because it is dependent upon A) what Garlic Powder happens to want, which is likely different from what individuals X, Y and Z want, and, B) assumes that morality hinges upon the Golden Rule. (GP also confuses legality with morality, but that’s a common mistake and irrelevant here.)

God’s Law is not the Golden Rule. The latter is only a subset of the former, the annotated version. The fundamental flaw in the Golden Rule is obvious, as it provides one free rein so long as his actions are in line with his reciprocal desires. So long as I wouldn’t mind a swimsuit model crawling into my bed unannounced, it is completely moral under the Golden Rule for me to crawl into hers without warning.

However, GP is partially right. God’s Law can certainly be seen as arbitrary, given that it hinges completely upon His Will. It is, however, universally applicable and rather less arbitrary than a moral “system” which varies completely from one individual to the next.