Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.

Let's try that again. Phat asked "Can anyone think of morals that society intrinsically knows to be true yet rountinely ignores or rejects?"

"If God places constraints of what human morality could be, then it is not morality.""If evolution places constraints on how high humans can jump, then it is not jumping."

Yes, okay; an atheist can argue that a human is of more worth than a bug, but his argument is based on nothing more his own opinion, an opinion that isn't supported by science. In fact, science opposes his opinion; science implies that one form of life is no more important than any other form of life. To claim that the life of human being is worth more than the life of a bug is to be unscientific. As an atheist once told me, "We're just grubs.".If one opines that a human life is worth more than the life of a bug, which part of science says this opinionis correct?-------------------------------------------If life is the result of a series of random accidents that happened to arrange a bunch of atoms into the form of a living, self-replicating machine - which is basically what science teaches - then life has no meaning at all. Life comes from nothing and goes back to nothing - so it is nothing. Aperson can believe that his life has meaning, but science implies that such a belief is nothing more than a delusion. If the life of a human being has meaning, then it can have no more meaning than the life of a mosquito.

I take your point. But a fly would choose the manure over the gold. So worth is subjective. I would consider that a side of beef has a lot of worth, but a vegan would find it worthless. Adolf Hitler believed the life of a Jew had no value. If an atheist wants to oppose Hitler's opinion, he has only his own opinion to do it with - science doesn't offer any advice on who is worthy of life and who isn't. In fact, Hitler could use science as an excuse to do whatever he wants - he could argue that science says all life is the result of a meaningless accident, therefore all life is meaningless, so killing Jews is meaningless.

Perhaps you could try arguing for those stupid and ridiculous propositions instead of just asserting them. The respect people round here feel for you is not so great as to take your words as unquestionable truth, especially when what you're saying is so obviously moronic.

The manure is objectively worth more to the fly. But in point of fact he used religion instead.

Dr. Adequate is a walking lie-detector. And he can sniff out a liar from milles away - and they're everywhere!

No.But don't you have something relevant to the topic to be wrong about?

If a Buddhist has to run, how will he be able to sweep fast enough to clear all the bugs away? If a Buddhist drives a car, how will he able to sweep all the bugs away from all the wheels? These are profound questions, to be sure.

And if we asked a bug, the bug would say his life was more important that a humans.And you know what? You'd get that answer from the bug whether he has an atheist, a scientist or a religionist.

Are you really asking such stupid questions?Stop, re-read what you posted, and then see if the answer is not obvious.If by chance the answer is not obvious repeat step one.What does that have to do with morality?

Dredge is at least reasonably logical.The laws of science and math and physics, just deal with the facts of history and the real world or invisible world.Morality is a set of ethics a person CHOOSES, as Christians realize and as even some atheists realize. They want to make their own decisions on morality rather than leaving them up to others as do most church people and most nationalistic zealous citizens.Buddists who are into not killing any life forms, have to constantly worry about killing bugs on their car wind screens, as they believe it will ruin their holiness. Thats their morality. Thats their choice in morality and lifestyle principles of holiness, much like the holiness practiced by those that killed *****.As for this board, usually we discuss evolution versus creationism.So what true science teaches us is, no learned behaviour ever changes our DNA. All species come out of the womb or eggs etc... fresh and without learned concepts from their parents. The God given traits (instincts, gualities, adaptations, etc etc etc..) and innate behaviours remain the same..Atheists cant change their DNA because they choose poorly, it isn't passed on directly to their offspring. They can try to indocrinate their children into rejecting Jesus, but each person chooses, its called their DIVINE RIGHT given by the Lord Himself

So, do you advocate capital punishment for women who have abortions?

Ringo: "On the contrary, evolution suggests that our genes are important, and our children have to be protected until they can pass them on."On the contrary, evolution suggests that life is meaningless and that nothing is important. Evolution is blind, mindless, unconscious and uncaring. It doesn't care if you and your children exist or don't exist. Do you think human beings need to exist? Of course they don't! Evolution doesn't care if your children pass their genes on or not. Evolution is just a series of meaningless accidents; it doesn't care if all life ceases to exist; it doesn't care if atoms themselves cease to exist. If you think life is important you suffering from a delusion that contradicts science.----------------------------------Ringo: "That is the foundation of all morality". Science says existence is meaningless, so there is no foundation for morality.

jar: "The God portrayed in the Bible stories ...does not think people are important."For God so loved the world that He gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. - John 3:16----------------------------------------------You call this God a "vicious genocidal monster", the implication being that he is immoral. Ok, it's your opinion is that genocide is immoral, but your opinion is unscientific, because science says human beings are no more important than bugs (or rocks, for that matter). So if killing bugs isn't immoral, neither is killing humans. Therefore in order to prove that this God is immoral, you must first - at the very least - prove that the life of a human being is worth more than he life of a bug. Otherwise, all you've got is your opinion verses the opinion of this God. So tell me, how are you going to come up with this proof when it contradicts science?