@ fulhamish - You seem to be misunderstanding the basic idea behind moral relativism. Moral relativism is not the view that all morality has changed at one point or another and that nothing is ever wrong in all cases. It's possible to take the stance that rape is always wrong, and murder is always wrong, and still be a moral relativist. The key point is that for a moral relativist, declaring anything wrong requires a logical argument explaining why it's wrong. Thus a moral relativist can still believe that rape and murder are always wrong, but under certain circumstances theft or physical assault might be justifiable. A moral absolutist cannot take that position. To an absolutist rape is wrong, not because it involves stripping someone of their sovereignty over their own body, but simply because it's a rule that has been laid down by some higher power that rape is wrong.
Also @ fulhamish - "Supposing we accept this response at face value, this must make the corollary true. That is that atheism cannot motiviate people to do good, whereas religion can. Anyone want to discuss that?" - Fair enough, however that does not mean that atheists are incapable of doing good for other, unrelated reasons.
@ everyone who's rebutting the "You can't kill in the name of atheism" argument - I would not seek to argue that Marxists, or more accurately Leninists and Stalinists aren't or weren't atheists. Obviously they did not believe in the existence of a god, no one is refuting that point. But the difference is that the connection between atheism and communism is more...incidental than the connection between say, Religious Fundamentalists who bomb abortion clinics or crusaders or jihadists. The difference is that killing in the name of communism could still occur even if communism was a Christian philosophy rather than an atheistic one. If you remove the religious motivation, bombing abortion clinics simply doesn't happen. If you remove the religious motivation, why the hell else would some medieval Frenchmen care about invading Israel? If you remove the religious motivation, can you have jihad? I think that's the distinction that needs to be drawn. It's not to say that all religious people are mass murderers, or that all atheists are non-violent saints. The take home point here is that it is possible for religion to act as a central motivation in killing people, in a way that atheism is far less likely to. It's not impossible, but there's less historical precedent for it, and even in cases where it does look that way, the link between violence and atheism is less direct.
Finally @ Crazy Anglican - I think before you start decrying religious intolerance you need to examine the position of the group you claim suffers intolerance in society. I mean, yes ideally no one would be subject to intolerance, but realistically, the majority group, the group with all the power, really can take a lot more criticism before the group suffers any real social harm of any kind, and often inflicts a great deal of social harm on less powerful members of society, to such a degree that some criticism is warranted. I put it to you that in terms of religious groups, Christians are the most powerful, hegemonic religious group in North America. And that Christianity and some Christian beliefs are used by some people (not all people, but some people) to inflict harm (intentionally or otherwise) on less powerful groups, both religious minorities and other forms of minority groups (racial minorities, women, LGBT persons etc.)
Vote only: Like the first post in this thread if..
)
)
)
)
)