A Naturalistic World

[Alan V]

It's openly and immediately a non starter from both angles.  If I thought it did make sense, I would also realize that I (and that opinion) doesn't make sense.  Wouldn't be the first time that my beliefs about a thing didn't line up to facts about a thing.

Plenty, and you don't have to take my word for it..just ask the christians who are perpetually surprised by what their allegedly christian brethren do and say.  

You're still insisting on emotional responses.  Moral outrage and moral condemnation can be and often are rational responses.  Explicitly and exclusively so in moral naturalism - what you asked about.  You're still insisting that surprised people are liars and/or dumb..as though surprise wasn't a real thing.  You're a misanthrope..but only, strangely.... with regard to your fellow atheists - in context.  The religious are just doing human stuff and we should be patient..the surprised and outraged irreligious are the morally guilty parties.  

:jerkoff:

If you feel comfortable flogging this horseshit, should I feel more, less, or just as comfortable pointing out that you're a person who's swallowed the theistic koolaid even though you don't believe in gods?  That you...are stupid..naive..or pretending?  Should I be better than you and to you, as you imply atheists should be better than and to theists?  Does the dumb gullible pretender rule hold in your case, according to you?

Does it even hold in the theists case, according to you?  Are you willing to affirmatively state that you actually believe that the religious are so thoroughly compromised, by being religious, as to be morally incompetent and therefore not subject to valid moral condemnation or outrage as anything rational..but instead, only mere emotional heckling?  If I told you to go fuck yourself, on that count...do you think I would be incapable of rationally cashing that check, and are we still speaking different languages, me the philosopher..that you can just never understand?

To put it mildly.  I think that you've been wildly misinformed, and even in the presence of an explanation to that effect, you're still strongly committed to being wildly misinformed and premising your conclusions on that misinformation.  You're wrong in fact, wrong in principle, wrong in practical theory, wrong in basic method...and yet....

Maybe you've failed to persuade people, especially moral naturalists like myself... because your notions are openly and obviously facetious or malformed?  The only real question is what you plan to do about that.

Thanks for the excellent example of the communication problem I've referred to.