Abortion: 10 years as an atheist and I still don't get it

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure it can.  I don't believe in gods, I know that there are different kinds of life.  Why did you think this would be difficult?

It's difficult because you can't make one kind of life more valuable than another, all life is made up with the same stuff, following essentially the same biological processes etc. and as such all lives are on an equal footing, and deserve equal chances of survival, unless religion kicks in.

That's something that -you- think, not something that atheists think.  Your own inability to understand why the differences in life lead to different moral conclusions about how we treat life is your own problem, and not atheist's problem.  

Any human being with two brain cells to rub together can recognize a moral difference in using a hedge trimmer on a bush, and a human hand.  It doesn't matter whether or not gods exists, and obviously we don't need to talk about gods to show why that would be a problem.  We need only refer to the differences between a bush and a human being.  

Hoping to offer some criticism of atheism, instead...you've indicated that you..personally, would not know why that was wrong in the absence of some djinn.  Is that really true?  

Now we're on to materialism.  It's important to point out that atheists don't have to be materialists, but it's no more difficult for a materialist to offer a set of value judgements than it is for you to do the same.  None of these things you're asking about are problems.  Who told you they were?  Why would they be?

The value judgments you're about to offer can't be justified. Supposing god automatically makes the human life more privileged. Other than that we're just a pack of matter.

Sure they can.  More to the point, supposing god has no bearing on objective moral values anyway.  Either things are morally true with respect to facts about the object or act....moral realism - or they are true with respect to facts about some subject - their attitudes, feelings, and wishes.  Moral subjectivism.

You're only telling me than nothing is objectively right or wrong in your moral system..and that you, incapable of an objective moral calculus, must presuppose that morality is subjective.  All well and good, but as a subjectivist..you don't really have the ability to make claims regarding others lack of justification. At the worst, the very worst, they're equally as subjective as your own moral system, and we're all bickering over whether chocolate or vanilla is the best flavor of ice cream. Obviously, I think there's a difference between the best flavor of ice cream, and whether or not it's morally acceptable to trim a bush or trim a human hand....and that the difference isn't some silly fucking gods preference for people.

You're free to expound upon that opinion though, and show why I'd have to refer to your god, or any god, in order to have a justified opinion on the moral status of those two acts. Can you do that, or is this just another thing that you believe in the absence of any justification and in spite of facts directly in front of you? Let;s be clear here. Do you really believe that the only possible moral systems are those that involve ghosts, or would it be more accurate to say that you understand that those moralities are possible..and do, in fact, exist...and that they are wrong...?