Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.

Your talent for obscuring a point approaches the herculean is very impressive.Sometimes, rarely these days, you're funny though. This one made me laugh. So much for the debate.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The word you are groping for is not "obscuring" but "refuting".

One could, but they would be wrong.Naturalistic evolution can be a fact while my thinking mind produces all kinds of meaning in my life.

Dr. Adequate: "How?"Naturalistic evoultion says that all life is the result of a series of mindless accidents. So the series of mindless accidents that resulted in human life has no more significance or meaning than a rock falling down a cliff. Do mindless accidents have meaning?

Dr. Adequate: "That would depend on what his are."I can't see how that's relevant; but anyhow, for argument's sake, pleaseconsider the following scenario: Mr. Hindu (who lives in India) thinks it grossly immoral to kill a cow and eat it. His neighbour, Mr. Muslim, doesn't think it at all immoral to kill a cow and eat it. How does Mr. Hindu or Mr. Muslim prove that their respective morality is the correct one? if you ask me, neither A nor B can prove that their morality is the correct one. So it boils down to one man's opinion verses another man's opinion - which I suspect is what all arguments re morality boil down to (which is why I said the particular nature of the morality in question is irrelevant.) What Mr. Hindu might regard as a rational argument for his morality may seem irrational to Mr. Muslim. and vice versa.

But the question is whether human life has meaning and significance, not whether the sequence of events that produced it does.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You asked me how to show that someone's opinions are incorrect. That would in fact depend on what they are, since there is not one single flaw common to every incorrect opinion. Well, the Muslim could start off by asking "why do you think it's immoral to kill a cow?"

That's a religious, not a moral argument. Religious arguments are rarely rational. Why not a sacred sheep? Jews think it wrong to eat pork - immoral?. Nah.

If that mindless falling rock lands on your house, doesn't that have significance or meaning to you? Do you really need an alien overlord to tell you whether it does or not?

New Cat's Eye: "They could, but they'd be wrong."If human beings are the result of naturalistic evolution - a series of random accidents - how can they have meaning?-----------------------------------------------------------New Cat's Eye: "my thinking mind produces all sorts of meaning in my life."This is an emotional response, not a scientific one.

Dr. Adequate: "I can make a cake without being a cake."Er ... yeah ... right. You can make a cake because you have intelligence (but don't let this go to your head - even the village idiot can make a cake). But a cake can't make a cake because a cake has no intelligence.Evolution is as dumb as a cake; it has no intelligence; it is a blind, mindless, unconscious, aimless series of random accidents - yet it supposedly produced creatures who have incredible minds capable of love, imagination, ethics, art, planning, designing, constructing, dreaming, problem solving, inventing, etc, etc. ... and atheists like to claim the higher ground over theists when it comes to reason. Bizarre.

By, y'know, having meaning."If zebras are the result of naturalistic evolution - a series of random accidents - how can they have stripes?" Do you mean anything by this or is it just the sort of thing you like to say from time to time?

Tangle: "We have an evolved brain that can work this stuff out." Hitler and the Khmer Rouge had "evolved brains" too, but they worked stuff out a bit differently to you and I. My point is, there is no way of proving that one man's opinion on morality is more valid or better than any other man's. Some folks think same-sex marriage is immoral, some don't - there is no way to prove that one opinion is right and the other is wrong.----------------------Tangle: "How so?"If humans and chimps share 98.8% of their DNA, you would expect them to much closer in appearance, behaviour, intelligence, etc. So I can only conclude that there is something misleading about the use of this "sharing 98.8% of DNA" argument. If we share 50% (?) of our DNA with bananas, why aren't we a little bit like bananas? Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

And a bacterium can make a bacterium without intelligence. Yes indeed. Can you think of any objection to this that does not rest on the ludicrously false tacit assumption that a process must have every property in common with its products? And the exhibition you make of yourself on these forums confirms this on a daily basis.