Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.

Okay, so the mind can form beliefs and that adds meaning. Now, why does it matter how the mind came about? What is it about evolving, but not being specially created by a god, that makes it impossible for the mind to create meaning in the former, but not in the latter?That is, why do you think that an evolved mind could not create meaning?

Non sequitur. Weather is blind, purposeless, mindless and unconscious but it's still about movement of air. The beginning of a life may be a result of sheer, meaningless luck but the end of a life is the result of selection. It isn't just luck that the slow zebra is the one that the lion catches.

God ordained the killing of babies simply because of who their parents were. That is immoral.

Humans can also write any story about any deity they want, and it could be anything. Your argument Humans can also believe in any deity they want, believe in anything they want about that deity, and claim that their deity commands anything they want. Your claims about religion suffer the same problems you are claiming exists with morality based on human reason and logic.However, religion has the added problem of being dogmatic and unquestioned. In the words of Steven Weinberg, with or without religion there will be good and bad people, but to get good people to do bad, that takes religion. When someone really believes a deity has commanded them to kill the infidels they will kill infidels in contradiction to their own sense of morality. That's why religious based moralities are so dangerous.

Why single out evolution? Gravity says that God doesn't push the planets around the Sun. Germ theory says that microorganisms cause infection, not God. You seem to be against science, not just evolution.

I guess some people are just empty shells incapable of individual thought.

It's much like the existential absurdity of baking, in which a process that isn't a cake somehow produces a cake.

If this is the case, it would still be the case if creationists were right about creationism.

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.

And so far you haven't made a serious point.I mean you say you accept things that God is supposed to have done as moral because you assume that God doesn't do evil. But can you persuade anyone else of that unless they already buy into your belief system or a close cousin ? And if you can't then you're in the same boat as everyone else.

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?

No I can't, and neither can you; morality is not mathematics.
But I do believe that harming people is wrong which apparently you do not. So discriminating against homosexulas because of the way your god made them is wrong.Morality is a code of conduct that is developmental - it evolves as our society develops. What Christians thought moral in the middle ages is not what they would think is moral today. There are very few absolutes even amongst same sect believers. Can you point me to a set of non-contradictory absolute morals? Laws develop from society's veiw of right and wrong and deal with codes of behaviour concerned with harm. Immoral laws tend to be made by dictatorships or countries governed by religious zealots who's concern is other than the well-being of the people. Yes. When I hurt them they scream and insist I stop. Do you think it moral for me to continue?

quote:

---

Is genocide ok by you when you god does it?
Yes. I accept all my God's judgements as righteous and just.

---

Mass murder is ok by you. Pause to let that sink in.This is why religious zealots are extremely dangerous and need to be controlled. You can't be trusted to behave morally if your deluded belief system tells you so.

By your own standards of proof you are now required to prove the following such that this "objective universal code of morality" can be accepted as able to tell us anything1) Prove that God exists
2) Prove that God is the source of objective morality
3) Prove that the action in question (e.g. genocide) is moral/immoral according to God's objective moralityGood luck with that..... It is my understanding that statistically the least religious societies are no more prone to crime than religious ones and that, if anything, they are less prone to violent crime. I guess we can research the facts on that if you think it relevant? My position is that human morality is a collective human decision. Therefore it should come as no surprise that things which promote the ongoing existence and well-being of humanity are likely to be deemed morally noble whilst those which act counter to that are deemed morally dubious.It's not perfect (who we define as fellow humans can be highly subjective and selective) and I make no claim that it is objective.But it's not un-reasoned. And it does form the basis of how morality can be rationally explained, whether you accept that or not.