Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.

How can he do that? But hardly anyone believes that they themselves will go to hell. Haven't you seen these bumper stickers? And haven't you heard anyone saying that salvation comes from faith and not works? At present, a devout Christian, because there are more of them. Your conclusion does not appear to follow from your premise. Why should things that are contingent be meaningless?

So how would you set about proving that genocide is OK if God approves of it?You say you "accept" it, but that merely describes your subjective frame of mind. How would you prove it as an objective truth?

This is the scary result of someone ignoring their own sense of morality in favor of blind obedience to a man made religion.

I rarely see anyone make moral arguments based on some abstract notion of superiority. Every discussion about right or wrong involves pointing out the consequences of the persons actions or beliefs:If you do this, then this will happen.If you believe this, then logically you can't avoid this.Most attempts at influencing another person's behavior - at least if their moral systems really are different - involve pointing out that the other person will not like the consequences, either because they will find them less morally acceptable according to their own values, or by pointing out they will suffer an unpleasant punishment.I can't think of an real example where people debated a real life issue based on an argument about whose moral system is superior according to some meta-ethical measurement. Most debates I've seen involved trying to convince the other person - or the audience - that they will like the results better if one course of action is followed than another.I think that whether your moral system is superior is not very relevant in real life discussions with real people about policies and acceptable behavior.

And ignoring what the Bible says as well.

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.

Then on what grounds can you impose your morality on someone else?--------------------------------You keep using harm as a major part of your argument, but harm is actually not a good indicator of morality. For example, a dentist will harm you when he pulls your tooth out - then he harms you again when he gives you the bill. A professional boxer will get in a ring and bash someone in order to get money to provide food and shelter for his family. A soldier will shoot an opponent dead. A judge will harm you when he takes your licence away for six months for drink-driving. A policeman will harm you when he hands you a $300 ticket for speeding.Then their are cases likes Adolf Hitler, who considered his moral duty to kill millions of Jews; or the Khmer Rouge, who tortured and murdered millions of their own citizens for the sake of equality. What? Are the police aware that you hurt people until they scream and insist you stop?

Wow that was sophomoric. I can't tell whether you're genuinely that stupid, or whether you're being disingenuous.

Perhaps you need to get out more."Let me summarise my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear - and these are basically Darwin's views. There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death ... There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life" - William Provine, (a late) atheist and evolutionary scientist. Oh, now that sounds very scientific! I hope the folks who came up with those ratings used an approved happiness meter (aka a Happinometer).

Do you have a reference for that quote?

Hitler was in fact religious, so you chose a singularly poor example there.

I agree. If my God doesn't exist, then I'm talking complete nonsense and my God's morality (and thus, mine) is as meaningless as anyone else's.

You make a good point. Unfortunately, I can't speak for "my god" with respect to what he thinks about meaning. But I am of the opinion that only immortality gives life meaning, and since God is immortal, he has at least some chance of finding meaning.