What is a person?

[jstrodel]

If naturalism/atheism is true there really is no objective difference between people and rocks, as it relates to moral reasoning.

Ofcourse there is. Rocks aren't capable of reflecting upon their actions and consequences or even their identities - which is why no form of morality would be applicable to them. Humans, on the other hand, are capable of that, which makes them moral agents.

You are making an argument from authority to an embedded concept of "morality" as it exists in Western civilization. But that morality refers to theistic norms. In what sense does the concept of morality exist outside of this? Morality in a theistic context has a specific reference and does not exist as a postulate of social control but is intended to point to the nature of human life. I do not see how this is tenable given naturalism.

What about instead of calling the ethics of atheists "morals", instead the more accurate term "opinions" was used? This is far more correct, as the sort of postulate of social control that atheists typically advocate has much more in common with an opinion than an intricate ethical system intended to describe not only what humans should do but what they are.

I do not see anywhere in evolutionary theory where attributes such reflecting on the consequences of actions would be defined in any significant way. This is more of a postulate of good behavior, but other postulates could be found.

I think that you have shown that atheists can have moral opinions. But there is really no intellectual rigor associated with the opinions and people could easily discard them, with a sarcastic look with techno music blaring and call them "fairy tales".