I extracted it from the green sentence.

Atheist morals aren't absolute morals, correct. As in not universal. They are only 'light' morals, morals in a context. As a set of rules that work here right now. Along the lines of "it's not beneficial for the survival of humans as a collective to have too many individuals who kill others randomly, so humans have developed genes that trigger feelings of repulsion towards such acts. And over the years, as the intellectual and cultural beings we are, those feelings have been projected into ethical rules."

But from an aliens' point of view that has no relevance. You couldn't use that as an argument to stop them from destroying all humans. For them our planet could be just like a stack of ants.

 And yes, from an atheists point of view murder is exactly that, "just another aspect of nature".

Evil is God's way of punishing people who don't deserve to be punished. Take earthquakes for example, it's just population control.....Or maybe it's not controlled by a omnipotent god.

I personally agree with you but I like to hear what those who think otherwise believe

Was it? Because I said that we recognise what is good and evil, but in your post you said that we don't recognise such things as good ad evil. 

You are correct that atheists don't have a set of absolute Universal morals. But I counter that with why do we need a set of absolute morals? Our morals come from nature as you say (whether it is from adaptation or a changing society), but that's good. Our morals are constantly adapting to the environment. We don't have a fixed set of morals that can become outdated.

A few hundred years ago I would have been able to morally keep slaves, I would find that to be a disgusting act now. As humans we've adapted to the new environment. But a look through Leviticus, an old testament book, and I can justify having slaves.

I'm not saying that Christians haven't adapted, of course they have with the rest of us. But their actual moral code has rarely been updated in the past 2000 years.

(In fact, the notion that Christians have updated their morals ahead of their unified set of morals is kind of re-enforcing my point that we are the ones who ultimately label what is right and wrong.)

Also, is having a divine unified set of absolute morals the only guiding force behind morals? What if your God decided to wipe all knowledge of those morals off the face of the planet right now? Would you suddenly go out and start raping and killing because you have no set of morals any more? I wouldn't think so.

...

And yes murder is "just another aspect of nature", I can go to the woods near my house right now and perhaps observe animals fighting each other. Do I think it's right to kill other people because it is nature? No I find it disgusting. Murder is just a sad fact of nature, I don't like it and I would deem it to be wrong, but it occurs.

Green: If I kidnapped a hermit who had no relatives or friends who would mourn him, there would be no effect to society in any way from what I did to him, and I'd take him into the woods and torture him and then kill him. What would you say, why is it wrong?
Or to the alien who threatens to wipe out everyone from our planet. Why is that wrong? From his point of view we're just vermin. Why would he listen to you?
Absolute morals would dictate that it's always wrong to torture an innocent living being. It was wrong in the stone age, it's wrong today as well as in the future. It's the adaptation that sucks, and is seen as dangerous (by Christians).

Blue: You are wrong. Because I would argue that Christian morals are timeless, it's the interpretation and application of them that has changed over time. Slavery was always wrong, at least for a Christian. It will make the discussion a bit complicated if we put the Bible into this, but okay.

Orange: if the divine spark within all of us was wiped away, and the rule book (the Bible) also was wiped away then I would just have my genes left, so then I'd act based only on them. I wouldn't rape and kill because my genes would still produce a feeling of repulsion. But the three guys with a hammer, their genes maybe don't produce such a feeling. So how could I then condemn them?

White: You say you observe nature. Would you really use the word 'wrong' when witnessing a hawk killing a chicken?

Its all relative, so it doesn't matter.

Green: 

I would feel that it is wrong to kill another human. Some don't and that is a sad fact we have to live with. I would say that it is most certainly wrong to kill the hermit, as would 99.9% of atheists because we would instinctively know that it is wrong. We can't stop the occasional nutcase who thinks that it is ok to do that.

Mind you, then again a small fraction of people who take Christian morals would also feel as though it is justified to go and kill the hermit, despite their absolute morals.

And yes, if aliens came tomorrow, I wouldn't expect them to follow a God and yes they would wipe us out in a second unless they felt compassionate towards us.

Blue:

Christian morals are timeless, just open to interpretation? How would you interpret, say, Leviticus 24:14 in a modern society...

"Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him."

How open to interpretation is this? You still have to follow it if it is timeless, in the modern world do you still need to stone a blasphemer? How is this interpreted differently now?

There's plenty more examples where that came from too.

Also, I would like to take up the point that the bible has to be "interpreted", this is confusing as I often hear that the bible is infallible. But if it is open to interpretation by mankind, then how can it be infallible? It just makes it extremely prone to errors (A chain is only as strong as the weakest link). If it is open to interpretation by man, then how can you believe what you read is the true interpretation?

...

And the Bible has never said slavery is ok? What about Exodus 21:2-6?

"21:2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.

21:3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.

21:4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.

21:5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:

21:6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever."

How about Timothy 6:1-2

"6:1 Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed.

6:2 If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer* by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them."

These past few were sourced from Christian websites. unfortunately there is no Christian website that has compiled extracts endorsing slavery. There's plenty more, here's a very bias link which I haven't quoted (link) (well the Christian sites are hardly likely to shout about this are they.)

Orange:

So if God suddenly made it ok to kill by removing the morals, you wouldn't kill? So with your new essentially atheist morals, you wouldn't go out killing? You would feel repulsed? Essentially what have said is that you have atheist morals, and you have masked them with Christian morals.

So, do you have atheist morals?

And regardless of if they have Christian morals or atheist morals, you will still get the nut cases who kill guys with a hammer.

Also, are you asserting that I somehow have lesser morals because mine aren't unified from a divine source?

White:

Whilst I am saying killing is wrong, I am also saying that it is a sad but natural and essential part of life. Don't believe that killing is essential? Try and get all of your local wildlife to life on a vegetarian diet.

Green: your dodging a little. I asked you for an argument. How would you argue that it's wrong. You only say "it's instinctively wrong". Okay...

And you wouldn't even try to argue with the aliens. Despite them being highly intelligent and compassionate beings? 

Blue:

I told u, u make it complicated by bringing the Bible into this. You cited texts from the Old Testament. They're rules that applies to Jews at that time in that context, not Christians. You ever wondered why you never hear a Christian argue that we should stone blasphemers or take slaves?
And the verses from Timothy, they're not pro slavery. Read the context and you'll understand that they're decrees for the believers to remain humble and peaceful even when they're supressed by evil-doers. Christianity is not an ideology of rebellion.

Orange:

In that scenario (if God removed morals) yes I would be left with "atheist morals". But where did I say that atheist morals are bad? Actually a big part of my whole argument is that most human beings, including atheists, have an intrinsic "divine spark" or "instinct" if you will, that is so strong about what is right and wrong, what is evil and good, a strong feeling or knowledge that goes beyond our biological programming.

You see, in many hypothetical discussions humans have the ability to step out from the ego, to distance themselves from their instincts and look upon matters from a more objective stance, but this is seldom the case for morals. Nearly every atheist will in fact, just like you,argue that it's wrong to torment the baby no matter if it was in pre-historic times, today or by an alien on an alien planet and yet in these discussions he will drop comments like we already seen in this thread "it's all relative" - that is, the atheist will attribute himself to absolute morals (damn, I dont think attribute is the proper word) and contradicts himself without knowing it.

So about the question whether your atheist morals are lesser than mine. Perhaps no since I believe they have the same source, which is some kind of universal and divine knowledge and conviction about what is right and wrong. But your arguments and basis for your morals are definately weaker.

Evil comes from the depths of Celine Dion's lungs.

what is evil?