Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.

I have been reading your posts. How about a brief explanation of how you can prove that your opinions re morality are more valid or more correct than someone else's?

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.

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.

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.

Thanks for the tip on using the quote system; it's different to what I'm used to.

We share 60% of our DNA with bananas and even more with fruit flys - this helps to understand why humans and chimps are so different despite them sharing 98.8% of their each other's DNA. And it means humans and chimps may not be anywhere nearly as closely related to each other as the 98.8% figure suggests - and evolutionists would have us believe.
Time and time again, if you chip away at many evolutionists' claims, you find that they are hollow and phoney - fake science concocted by con-men and charlatans.

Yes, they could engage in an exhaustive dialogue, but most likely it will eventually reach a stalemate where it's simply one implacable opinion verses another implacable opinion. It would be like one man arguing that a Porsche is a better-looking car than a Ferrari verses another man who argues vice-versa - neither point of view can be proven correct.

Well, let's simplify things by cutting religion out of the discussion - there are plenty of non-religious folks who oppose same-sex marriage. Your opinion on the matter is not more valid than theirs and there is no objecitve way of deciding which opinion is correct.(The law of the land is irrelevant, since whoever is in power gets to impose their version of morality on everyone else; or laws are arrived by concensus, which is alsoirrelevant, because consensus doesn't prove that a law is morally correct.)

If atheists are correct and there is no God or gods, then religious morality is man-made - therefore they are as just as valid as any other expression of human morality.

This is too deep for me to comprehend.

It's not a problem for me - more like morbid curiosity. I just can't understand how meaning can be found in a meaningless event.

You make an excellent point: Things that are intelligently designed for a purpose can be assigned meaning.

Humans can and do form their own codes of morality, but it could be anything. If a human believes that he is created by God, then it makes sense to conclude that the God who made everything and knows everything, will also know what is morally right and wrong, It also makes sense that this God will let humans know what is right and wrong.