Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.

And yet, if Hitler had said, "I've read Origin of the Species, and Darwin would definitely have voted for the Nazis," the creationists would totally have grabbed that and ran with it. In fact, they have run with the "Nazis are based on Darwin" theme even though Hitler didn't actually say that.But Hitler used creationist rhetoric? Now we suddenly have to question Hitler's sincerity?

Another thing I've noticed about people who believe that there is an objective standard for morality is that none of them seem to really know what that standard is.Other than a few commandments here and there and some vague aphorisms, it appears that people who believe in objective morality don't have a whole lot to go on and are forced to make it up as they go along. These people, no less than those who accept that morality is subjective, seem to have the same doubts about whether they "got it right", confront the same dilemmas that don't seem to have easy solutions, and discuss issues with other people hoping to be able to "home in" on the right decisions to make in specific circumstances. In short, they act exactly as people who believe in the subjectivity of morality act.As a result, we see that there is a wide variety of morality even among those who believe in "objectivity", and even within religions wide disagreement on what is or is not moral. And the individuals, at least the ones who aren't insane, are no more or less certain about whether they know the correct course of action than anyone else. If there is an objective standard for morality, then the world looks surprisingly similar to the way it would look if morality were subjective.An objective standard for morality doesn't really do anyone any good unless one can actually point to it and use it. People who believe in objective standards for morality are not immune to the very problems they think that the "subjectivists" are prone to. In practice, even if there exists and objective standard, everyone's morality is subjective.

Dredge, you series of one or two sentence comments seem pretty random and don't seem to have much of a coherent idea behind them. Are you still trying to argue for something? 'Cause you're giving the impression of someone shooting a gun blindly behind his back as he's trying to get away.Maybe you need to take a break for a couple of days, think about what you're trying to say, and write a more substantive post expressing your point clearly.

While playing a game with friends that involves rolling dice, randomness is desirable.In presenting a coherent argument to further a point, randomness will obscure your position.When speaking about the appearance of inheritable variations upon which natural selection acts, randomness is neither good nor bad, it is just how things happen.

We know that. The question is: so what? What is your point?Edited by Chiroptera, : Typo.

Thanks, Davidjay.I don't think that gets to the point Dredge is trying to make. But who knows? I thought I got his point, but he's been pretty much ignored my responses. He's pretty reticent about explaining himself clearly.