Evil Atheists

[Shell B]

Thankyou Shell B, you may be surprised that I am in agreement with you, so can we dispense with the atheist vs theist approach and deal with the question now? How can one subjective view of morality logically refute the subjective morality of another person without reference to a transcendental objective truth?

If someone chose to refute another person's morality, they would simply have to fall back on action and reaction, cause and effect, etc. norms. What is the usual reaction to such an action? Do people have positive or negative chemical responses in the brain? If the answer is negative, in general, then it isn't a great thing to do. The negative response is fueled by our brains, not by the morals themselves. The morals come from these chemical reactions, which have been bestowed upon us by the wonderful workings of evolution. There you have it, balancing norms with logic. Feelings of sympathy and empathy driving our actions. Will a bible thumper accept this explanation? Of course not. Therefore, I can refute his morality and do it well, in my opinion. However, I cannot convince him to see morality my way without him being willing to do so. I don't really care if people are like me, though. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.

Now, I object to your use of the term "transcendental objective truth." It operates on the assumption that the reference that you speak of -- which we both know is god's word, killing your attempt at removing atheism and theism from the debate -- is actually objective fact. In my opinion, no one has a transcendental objective truth in regard to morality. Therefore, anyone who has ever refuted someone else's morality has done so without it.