Can objective morality exist in Atheism?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

objectivitees Wrote: In short, the claim Atheism is not a world view is nothing more than an avoidance technique for Atheists to not have an honest debate. You fear having to explain why you believe rape and murder are "wrong" when in Atheism, there can exist no absolute morality.

Oh dear,another one. This has become really tedious.

An Agnostic atheist ,I assert only "I do not believe in Gods"'. I make no claims of any kind 'as an atheist'.That means I have no burden of proof. I need explain ,prove ,justify exactly nothing. That honour belongs 100% to you.

Why on earth would I bother with some bloody minded apologist who lacks the wit to grasp the meaning of the word 'atheist'?

I don't know you or care about you. To be blunt, I don't care if you should spontaneously combust. Nor do I care about your personal superstitions,your apparent inability to grasp basic forms of logical argument or the quaint notion that atheists owe you something.

Disclaimer: due to age and irascability,I simply don't suffer fools. I'm terribly sorry,but really can't be bothered with you.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Atheism;disbelief in the existence of Gods (Concise Oxford Dictionary)

Nothing else is implied or may be inferred. Atheism is NOT: a world view,a religion, a moral code (or lack of one),a political ideology,a movement, a club or association.

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on those making any kind of claim. This is not a mathematical or logical proof, but rather a conventionally acceptable amount of evidence that will warrant the claim. This burden of proof is often asymmetrical, and typically falls more heavily on the party that makes an ontologically positive claim, or a claim that greatly departs from conventional knowledge.

The fallacy of demanding negative proof

"Burden of proof" in philosophic or scientific contexts means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this." Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, and especially a positive claim, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to provide warrant for the claim. In short, X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven (see argument from ignorance).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic...n_of_proof