Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.

I think "we" are not seeing very well and have barked up the wrong tree (I was under the impression that "Paulk" represented one person, but it turns out that Paulk is "we" - more than one person.)
I've never considered avoiding punishment as a basis of morality. The basis of my morality is the morality of the Catholic Church.

I'm not interested in your straw man. ----------------------------It doesn't matter what argument you offer in favour of same-sex marriage, there will always be many non-religious folks who will disagree with you and reject your rationale - therefore it comes down to one opinion verses a contrary opinion, and there is no objective means to determine which is correct.

You seem to have missed my point. I'm not disputing the figures; I was trying to point out how misleading they can be, but you obviously don't get it. It's not rocket surgery. But I won't waste any more time on it, as it's way off topic.

I accept that our minds are capable of believing anything that they want to believe, regardless of how irrational, baseless and delusional. Psychological need is the mother of invention.

You are of the opinion that genocide is immoral, but how can you prove that genocide is immoral? If you can't prove that genocide is immoral, then it's just your opinion verses the opinion of this God.

Well done, Dj; you have pointed out the existential absurdity of naturalistic evolution: A mindless process that relies on the rule of the jungle somehow produces human beings - who don't live by the law of the jungle; a mindless process in which equality has no place somehow produces human beings - who value equality.

Evolution is not about anything; it is blind, purposeless, mindless and unconscious. Life is a result of sheer, meaningless luck and survival is a result of sheer, meaningless luck. Evolution doesn't care if human beings exist or not. Evolution doesn't care if no life at all exists.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

I don't have an issue with that. If you find meaning and happiness in life, good luck to you. If I were an atheist, I would consider life meaningless, morality meaningless and beliefs meaningless and actions meaningless and emotions meaningless.

My comment re how I felt sometimes driving a taxi was tongue-in-cheek. It wasn't meant to be taken seriously.

In other words, you can't prove that your opinion on same-sex marriage is more valid than someone else's opinion that opposes it.

You are equating laws with morality, but they're not necessarily the same thing.-------------------------------Can you prove that harming another human being is immoral? Yes. I accept all my God's judgements as righteous and just. He doesn't do evil.

I don't think you can - therefore no one can prove that their morality is superior to anyone else's. You can hold that opinion that genocide is immoral, for example, but you can't prove that it's immoral. That why an objective, universal code of morality is needed - but only God can provide an objective, universal code of morality. Regardless of what laws a society comes up with, an atheist can choose to ignore them it do whatever he thinks he can get away with. A Christian who fears God doesn't enjoy this freedom, as he believes that all his deeds will be judged - which may result in eternal damnation. Do you imagine a career criminal is more likely to be an atheist or a devout Christian? If life is a result of some happy accident of nature, survival is meaningless because no life needs to exist. Therefore morality is meaningless. Evolution has nothing to do with it.
It doesn't matter if a pack of psychopaths wiped out all other human beings on earth - humans don't need to exist. Do you think humans need to exist?

What you need to do is stop arguing emotionally, and start arguing philosophically. I know all about how to argue philosophically coz when I was ten I watched a program on TV about Socrates.
Plus, my cousin has a degree in Philosophy and I reckon some of her philosophy-training energy-aura stuff somehow travelled out of her brain, then out of her ears, travelled through the air by psychomosis and into my ears; from there it entered my brain-system thing. Hence my advanced skills as a philosopher. It's possible that I'm even better at philosophy than I am at science!

Sounds a bit tendentious to me. In the 20th century, non-religious morality proved much more dangerous and deadly than all the religion in history - just ask the six millions Jews that Hilter murdered, the five milliion Cambodians that the Khmer Rouge murdered and the tens of millions who died at the hands of Russian and Chinese Communists.

I used to understand what this whole conversation was about, but now I forget what it was.