Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.

No, Hitler didn't use evolutionary theory, so you're wrong right out of the gate.But mainly your post has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with my question, and it doesn't have anything to do with Dredge's point either (he can correct me if I'm wrong).You're going to have to do a better job reading what people have wrote; picking a random word and then going into free association isn't an effective method of debate.If you want to talk about racism, there's a perfectly good thread for that already - Evolution is a racist doctrine - although it appears you're done with racism and are trying to drag that thread off topic.Edited by Chiroptera, : Minor typo.

You assume a need to prove a moral code to be correct - try demonstrating that need. No one arguing against your position is of the view that a moral code can be, or needs to be, proved correct. You are tilting at windmills. To me, yes.You missed the thrust of my point though. My moral code is one that has not been passed to me by a supposedly superior being. It's my code, and I face the world's opinion of it squarely in the eye, no excuses.If there were a god, who manifested himself and told you to kill all of the children in your home town, my guess is you'd do it.Me, I'd tell him to go screw himself.

Well, if you know what you think you're talking about, how about you cut to the chase and explain it to the rest of us?

But for the word "American", that's probably about how Pontius Pilate would have described Jesus.

Well, at a minimum it shows that it's a bit simplistic to equate morality with Christianity.And if that doesn't undercut the main thrust of your argument then I wish you'd be a little more clear as to what you are trying to say.

I suspect you don't mean reality. As did the discoveries of geology and astronomy - old earth and heliocentricity. As did medicine and the scientific method generally. Combined, they proved the errors of primitive, superstitious thinking.That is not the fault of science, none of these discoveries have anything whatsoever to do with religion - they just happen to demonstrate that religion is wrong.And that is reality. No amount of complaining can change reality.

What do you think "ontological" means? Y'mean, the Biblical literalists didn't like it? Sure they didn't. But that's not because it says or implies "anything at all about life after death or morality or the meaning of life". It's 'cos it casts doubt on the story about the talking snake.

So if you're right about that then the remaining difference between us is that I can say genocide is wrong and you can't.Christianity, eh?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Nice try, but I didn't lie about Provine; I was relying on memory for that part of the quote. Has your memory ever let you down?

So far, the only conclusion I can get from the creationist Christian side is:If evolution/atheism is true, then morality is subjective. But so what?Is that more or less accurate? 'Cause, honestly, you're not doing a particularly good job at filling in the "so what" part.

Evolution can not explain any observed facts let alone altruistic acts between individuals in a species, nor symbiotic relationships.Altuism is acts of love. Evolution is a con, evolution is a myth. Evolution has nothing to do with behaviours or instincts that are given each species or KIND at creation. Evolutionists can not take the credit for adaptations, instincts, behaviours....... I repeat learned behaviours and behaviours themselves are not evolved and genetic explosions dont make better behaviours in our genes, nor do behaviours or morality change with each new generation of animals or humans.Babies are babies and come out the same way as with the original babies, from the original couple. NO difference.... so called branching is racism, evolution is racism..... and creates nationalism and wars.Creation and equality wins, evolution loses.Morality is how we treat others, love is the answer.God is love, deal with it. Understand it, accept it.Love wins..

[creationist-mode]Because then it will be moral to rape, murder and eat children, that's what I (the creationist) would do ...[/creationist-mode]ie, if it is not written in stone then anything goes ...... which ignores the fact that people live in groups that interact with other people, so they would likely kill you as soon as possible if you tried to do that - for self preservation.Morals are behaviors that are considered good for the preservation of the group.They are memes passed from one generation to the next.They evolve with the times and changing social mores, so stoning becomes immoral and gay marriage becomes moral, because this reduces harm to the population.Morals written in stone are not as forgiving, so we still see people stoned to death for perceived moral reasons, we still see racism and misogyny and other forms of bigotry being considered "moral" by the stone code.Who enforces the social moral codes? The society.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : .

Another false statement that has already been disposed of earlier in this thread. So this time, you're wrong before you even got to the gate.- Which is something else that has been disposed of completely back on the racism thread: Evolution is a racist doctrine. By all means, you are welcome to go back there and repeat the same junk over and over again and we'll just stuff it in the junk bin all over again.I realize that you are working under a severe disadvantage: you know absolutely nothing about the theory of evolution. But seeing how you are utterly unwilling to learn anything, it's kind of your own fault.It doesn't help, either, that you don't really understand how logic works.

Is it necessarily "...for the preservation of the group?"Maybe morals are simply behaviours that are considered good.And, on top of that, 'behaviours that are considered good' include those behaviours that preserve the group.
But perhaps not limited only to such a thing.Like not cheating in a board game when you know you won't get caught.Certainly not something that preserves the group.
But also "good morals," no?I suppose you could use another word for such a thing... like 'honour' instead of 'moral'... but that seems like a cop-out to me.