Not only do I seem not to understand what you are saying since they are abstract to say the least, you also seem to be lost on what I have said which is by far the simplist thing that has been said. . No where did I say the Atheist has no frame work for his morality. An atheist is a person. People get their morality from a variety of placed. Atheism in itself, is not a law, it's not a philosophy, it's not a club. It's the simple statement that we do not see proof of a god or the supernatural. The comparison of atheism to other belief structures is not accurate because it's apples and oranges. There is no debate from me that my atheism is where I get my morality from. Atheism has nothing to do with morality. Nothing, no comparison. So when I am confronted by a moral issue, I have no atheist handbook to skim through for guidance. Since I don't have the time to go through every issue on earth and what I think of that issue, I will simply say I try to treat those as I wish to be treated. If I don't get that same treatment back, that's on them and not a reflection of me.

But that is the problem we are facing. My morality, while consistent, is something that I think about personally, grapple with in my own mind, and then come to the conclusion of what I think. I have no prepackaged morality through a bible. I'm not saying there aren't very valuable lessons in the bible, as well as other religions. Only a fool would make such a statement. But it is an outdated text, written by man. In a lot of ways, consulting the bible for moral wisdom in todays society is a lot like still opting to use a type writer to write college papers. Maybe it can work, but there are now a lot better ways to type.

So, back to your argument, just because I don't like something, it doesn't mean it's immoral. I know this. I don't like trumpets. I don't think a trumpet is immoral. Second, I do not think that evolution is a fact about nature. I think it's a theory. Gravity is a fact (law) as long as you aren't in a black hole (theory). The reason everyone doesn't agree about evolution is because it hasn't been proven as a law yet.

But you are right about one thing, I do not "get" what you are saying about morality. My guess is, that you are going to not answer any of the questions about the various and 100s of rididculously ancient and outdated biblical texts on the basis that I'm taking everything out of context and being cynical, but really just don't want to talk about it.

1. I have continually stated that atheism has no grounding or sufficient intellectual foundation for morality. That is the subject that started this whole conversation. I have seen nothing that causes the least bit of doubt about this claim. If “morality” has to do with what humans should or should not do, there must be a standard or basis upon which such a determination is made. Atheism does not provide one. Since you cannot provide an objective basis for moral judgments, every time you make one it rings hollow since you cannot tell me why you say someone “should” or “shouldn’t” do anything (except for non-moral reasons like survival, pleasure or whatever).

2.I agree that atheism does not provide a handbook for morality. I have argued this is because once one denies God, the ultimate grounding for an objective morality is now gone. That’s why atheism can’t say anything about it. Although you are an atheist, you admit that you have to try and figure out morality on some other grounds. Those who believe in God ground their moral reasoning in the divine mind which is the “home” and source of moral goodness. Since you deny God, you have no such grounding and, as you admit, don’t even have the time to try and figure it all out. So what do you do? You appeal to a principle classically associated with religious systems, especially (but not exclusively) Christianity: the Golden Rule. When you say there is no God (or anything supernatural), you are simultaneously saying that all that exists is nature. If atheism only has the resource of “nature” (understood typically as matter in motion), it follows that it cannot believe in morality as something more than a product of a blind, material, physical process and therefore ultimately nothing more than a “fact” of nature. Good and evil are rendered meaningless in such a conception of the world. I think you are trying to suggest that atheism has no real obligation to explain anything (since you are only making a denial rather than an affirmation) but your denial of God also logically entails certain implications. One of these is that morality evaporates.

3.Regarding the Bible being outdated, etc., I would continue to argue that the Bible, when correctly understood, is a primary source of moral influence throughout the past thousands of years of history and that your moral sensitivities today are, at least in part, ultimately a product of that lengthy tradition even though you do not acknowledge that fact.

4.Regarding evolution, you miss my point. I’m not talking about evolution as a theory. Let’s assume that biological evolution has really happened. Even though there are people who doubt it now (perhaps because it has the status of “theory” rather than “fact” as you say), this does not mean that evolution is not “true.” When people came to believe that the earth moves around the sun rather than the other way around there was not a change in reality only a change in perception. If the moral law is objectively true, how people perceive or understand that law (or do not even acknowledge it) does not change the objective reality. And, I might add, just like I would go to the scientist to find the best source for understanding some scientific “fact,” so I would go to those who have devoted their lives to thinking and living the moral law to find out what the moral law is all about. There is a remarkable similarity of moral principles found among those who most deeply and profoundly devote themselves to learning and living the moral law.

5.You are right that I’m not really that interested in talking about the items from the Old Testament that you copy and pasted. My reason is simply because it would be an enormous waste of energy. We don’t even share a common set of moral principles (at least not consciously) that would allow us to have a meaningful conversation about that. Your goal in mentioning such things is, I think, primarily polemical and not with an openness to learn and patiently consider the facts and possibilities.

6.The questions I keep asking are still unanswered. What gives you the right or moral grounding to “judge” the Old Testament legal codes as “immoral”? You want me to explain them since you obviously see them as immoral. Why isn’t it true that their morality is equal to yours? Why can’t someone else say their morality is better than yours? Why can’t someone say your morality is just a sign of your own weaknesses (since you try to treat others like you want to be treated, your real motive, they might say, is self-preservation)? Why should someone who has power over others ignore what others want and get what he wants if that is what he wants to do? If you answer these questions, we might be closer to looking at the text in Exodus.

I NEVER said I think you're going to hell! I would never say or think such a thing about another person. I have repeatedly stated that atheists can be positive, law abiding citizens. I've never made such a claim about any atheist!