[djmcmath]

Well, yes, Thom, I think that is what Supe is saying (sort of). If the terms "right" and "wrong" are to have any meaning at all, there must be a standard -- some objective standard for what is "right" and what is "wrong." That standard has to be established by an entity outside of all those subject to the definition, else the standard isn't objective. That entity also has to abide perfectly by the standard. You see, if there is no external entity defining these terms, than we may as well say "pleasing" or "inconvenient." For example, if there is no objective standard, then having my car stolen isn't "wrong," but rather simply "inconvenient."

Not that theism is the root of all goodness -- certainly not so, as all of us can testify to. Theists do things which are wrong (or inconvenient, as your vocabulary dictates) just as often as atheists, and they often cite their (perceived) objective standards for doing them. More accurately, without at least a subconscious recognition that there is some objective standard of truth established by an objective entity, then much of reality loses it's meaning.