I responded thusly:
I am not sure if you cannot identify a rhetorical device when you encounter one or if you are being sarcastic. Obviously, or so I thought, I was attempting to get you to elucidate because you did no “show” anything—you merely presented some assertions and I was asking why those assertions are valid and or upon what they were premised.
Moreover, you are incorrect in stating that “so much for the xian claim of atheists having no moral code,” this is not the claim, the claim is that you have no premise beyond your personal preferences.
Furthermore, the concept of Christian morality being based on someone watching and dictated by rewards and threats of punishment is an atheist myth based on atheist’s presuppositions and prejudice. How do you know why a Christian does or does not do something? Can you read thoughts? Can you discern motivations?
I then succinctly explained what I drew out in the Red Light essay and ended this way,
You make assertions about morality but I am trying to understand why, what is behind them, on what are they premised? Simply stating something to the likes of you should be “moral” because you should be “moral” and morality is preserving humanity just does not cut the proverbial mustard.
His next response was a more typical, of him, ramble for a few pages session but here are the most relevant portions:
…if stuff like empathy, the golden rule, or the well-being of future generations of people doesn’t count then it’s apparent that those are not things that you’re concerned about…I guess empathy, consequentialist morality and thinking of the survival of the human race are just “assertions” to you then?
Is preserving humanity not “valid” enough?…”Personal”? Is the survival of the human race merely a personal preference? Theists…have no sense of morality at all…
You spent a lot of time trying to question where atheists get “our” morality from, but you’ve never really explained where you get yours from (ie. what’s God’s rational for the laws of morality he passed down?)
He then finished off with PZ Myers this, flat-earther that and Dover trial the other (see here for flat-earth info). Note that he is, I would imagine, responding emotively by stating, “if stuff like empathy, the golden rule, or the well-being of future generations of people doesn’t count.” They count towards the survival of the human race but does not explain why that should be our goal and our premise for morality.
Then he attempts to side track me by bringing up God again; I call it attempted side tracking because he obviously wants to copy and paste his favorite well within the box atheist talking point de jour.
I noted, in part:
…I am afraid that you are misunderstanding me. Please do not confuse my questions and my requests for further elucidation for disagreement. I agree with your moral assertions but you have not provided any premise for them. You are stating what we should do but not stating why. Empathy, the golden rule, the well-being of future generations, etc. are not reasons, they are assertions.
For example, you stated “Is preserving humanity not ‘valid’ enough?” Valid as what? It may be a goal and something that we ought to strive for but it is not a valid reason since it is not a reason at all…
He then rambled on about the Bible and then wrote, “So, the well-being of future generations is not a reason? Then nothing possibly can be then, I guess. If that isn’t a valid reason for you, then what would be?” then back to God this and God that sort of stuff, creationists this, flat-earther that, etc.
And with that, well, that was about that.
I will wrap it up in the next segment.