Kind of an unenlightened point of view.
How do you figure?
Not to victims of the immoral.
Wow, what a total nonsensical red herring. Morality does not become a black and white issue because people sometimes get hurt.
If I accidentally knocked you down and broke your arm because I was chasing a purse-snatcher, would you be considered a victim of the moral?
Then there is no justice. Just get what you can how you can. Naturalism ethics and values. Naturalism is another word for atheism.
Extrapolate from the analogy however you like, it doesn't change the fact that there is no final, universal arbiter of morality available to all of us. The analogy of the car accident and the video camera, which you proposed, is an amusing one, and does demonstrate the array of interpretations likely to be gleaned from various people with different perspectives, but the video camera solution to that problem is, as I said before, unavailable to us in the real world, as it pertains to morality.
Reality, and indeed actuality, are the foundations of morality. Otherwise there wouldn't be lines on highways and roads etc., etc..
I doubt that. Otherwise atheists wouldn't object to creationism being taught in schools.
For the life of me, I don't see how either of these responses make even a modicum of sense. Do you want to try again?
And how is that not atheist ethics and values? We, just being a part of naturalism.
As I said before, outcomes are not analogous to morals. Just because a thing is natural does not imply to me that it is necessarily good or bad. It simply is. How a
person treats another
person is something I may deign to describe as moral or immoral.
So you do practice naturalism. Notice no gazelles scream for help from the Zebras when being victimized by the predators. Good example of atheist ethics and values.
Atheists do not have a uniform set of ethics, and your scenario does not relate to ethics of any kind. It seems that your entire post is designed to paint all atheists with your broad brush of amorality. Is the preponderance of my discussion with you really going have to be me telling you that the wild and rapid conclusions that you toss out are irrelevant nonsense?
I appreciate your honesty.
I don't appreciate your constant mis-attributions. For someone arguing morality from a Christian standpoint, you spend a lot of time lying.
Now, let me ask you, if you were to get robbed by a stronger man, would you complain about it, or just go on, and thank abiogenesis that you are still alive? Of course where do emotions of being wronged even enter naturalism anyway?
Yes, we get it, you think that anyone who does not digest morality from a religion must practice pure moral nihilism, and you deign to attribute that to every atheist on the planet.
While it is possible to make an amusing wisecrack about misrepresenting someone else's position every once in a while, it's not generally advisable to stake out an argumentative position based wholly upon intentionally misrepresenting the position of an entire group of people.
If you want to get into a discussion about how I, personally, interpret morality, I'll start by calling your post immoral.