No, you have read my post completely backwards. I said that it is inherent, it is always wrong to murder babies, even if you're in Joshua's army committing genocide under the supposed command of God.
Where did you get your measuring stick from?
I think every person can agree that if I poke that person in the eye for no reason I am doing wrong. That is from whence the measuring stick comes.
If you took your atheism seriously
Who said I'm atheist?
you would have no basis for condemnation of those who condemn her actions either.
Nonsense. I am quite capable of objecting when I'm poked in the eye, and I can observe and object when someone else is poked in the eye as well.
How is my interpretation backwards?:
"Once I had come to the conclusion above--that morality is not inherent..."Who said I'm atheist?
Maybe I'm wrong but I thought you said it:
"...and that God most likely did not exist..."
Where does the "wrong" come from if, God forbid, someone pokes you in the eye for no reason? If the pokee is really nothing more than mere epiphenomenon of matter in motion, as is the poker, so what? Are the neuro-chemical reactions in the brain of the somehow pokee more "valid" that the chemical reactions in the brain of the poker? How so? Are there good atoms and bad atoms?
Of course you object to being poked in the eye, but what is the moral basis for your objection? The chemical reactions in your brain dictate that you do not have the taste for being poked in the eye. The chemical reactions in the brain of poker, not being the same chemical reactions as in your brain, dictate a different personal preference, in this case, for poking you in the eye. Why would there be any expectation of physical reactions to do something other than what they do? Physical phenomena just are what they are. How do you justify your expectation that they ought to be something else?
I think every person can agree that if I poke that person in the eye for no reason I am doing wrong.
Is the source of morality agreement? What if the poker does not agree? Would that mean that there is no morality when there is disagreement?
Cordially,