Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.

No they don't, because not being lunatics or morons they are aware that this is not in fact what evolutionary theory says.

No it doesn't. It is trivial to avoid that "implication". To begin with, one could notice that it's not an implication. I also think that you're important; also I exist.

But why? Saying it doesn't make it so; and since it evidently isn't so, the onus is on you to produce an argument.---You are using a notion of importance and value which is used by no-one, not even you, except for the purposes of lame Christian apologetics.Suppose you asked someone to explain why (for example) his computer was valuable to him, and why it is important that he have one. We would expect him to talk about what the computer does, wouldn't he? And if instead he said "It is valuable to me only because it was made on Tuesday, in Korea, out of polycarbonate; it would be quite worthless to me if it if it worked just the same way but was made on Wednesday, in Japan, out of acrylonitrile butadiene styrene" --- well, we'd think he'd gone mad, wouldn't we?But this same madness is offered to us quite seriously by the Christian apologists. We point to a man and ask if he has value and importance. They reply: "This same man, having the same capacity to think and dream, to grieve and rejoice, is either of no value or of great value, depending on whether he was made by nature out of atoms or by God out of atoms and also some invisible bits."It is hard to see why anyone would say such a thing --- but religion does make people do funny things sometimes.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You do tell such silly lies, don't you?Would your world really fall apart if you stopped?

Or to take another example, suppose someone smells a sweet and fragrant rose. He then proclaims: "This rose is only sweet and fragrant if it was grown in a crystalline vial of perfume by a beautiful woman; if, on the other hand it was grown by an ugly man in a bucket of manure, then it does not smell nice at all." But the smell of the rose is a given: it cannot be changed by some discovery about the origins of the rose.(And one could extent the analogy by pointing out that sweet-smelling roses can be grown in manure, but no roses of any kind will grow in perfume.)

Again, a thing's properties and identity obviously do not depend on its origins. If we possess morality, we possess morality whether it was bestowed on us by evolution or foisted on us by an omnipotent god.

Things you do not understand are not necessarily nonsense. Sometimes the problem is at your end.

... but it doesn't, as you can see by actually reading the Bible instead of merely speculating about what it means.

If you think this is the case, maybe you could try arguing for it instead of just saying so. If you think this is the case, maybe you could try arguing for it instead of just saying so. Or we could say the things we actually say instead of the silly things you make up in your head.Yeah, I think we'll do that.

Let's try that again. Phat asked "Can anyone think of morals that society intrinsically knows to be true yet rountinely ignores or rejects?"

"If God places constraints of what human morality could be, then it is not morality.""If evolution places constraints on how high humans can jump, then it is not jumping."

Perhaps you could try arguing for those stupid and ridiculous propositions instead of just asserting them. The respect people round here feel for you is not so great as to take your words as unquestionable truth, especially when what you're saying is so obviously moronic.

The manure is objectively worth more to the fly. But in point of fact he used religion instead.

No.But don't you have something relevant to the topic to be wrong about?

Not if they're the exactly the same thing, no. 'Cos of what "exactly the same" means.