chavos

It sure is. But on what authority does its maxim hold True, and not just "a good idea"? The point is that any condemnation that a true atheist can offer is from the offense of his/her own conscience. There is no standard apart from this that they can use. Perhaps others are okay with this...but i would suggest that your instinctual reaction to graphic and egregious wrongs might suggest otherwise-do you say "that murder/rape/child abuse is wrong in my mind, but may have been considered right by the perpetrator" or do you say that "those acts are Wrong, no matter what." The latter points to an authority by which you say that, and its what most people say when first confronted with the real horror of sin.

And to those who say that self-intrest dictates a policy of morality, i'm a little dubious. If the true concern is self intrest, even an enlightened and long term self intrest, i have a problem thinking that it will never run counter to human rights, and what we'd probably say is moral behavior.

And to those who think that just because they can think of a moral law that God is unneeded. If you can imagine a perfect moral code, where DID that idea come from?

"that the requirements of the Law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them."
Romans 2:15

I think our inborn sense of right and wrong is a precious gift from God, not that i can prove it. But it sure makes sense to me...and i hope it might make sense to some of you.