There are HUGE disagreements about human life itself: Abortion, death penalty, assisted suicide, "stand your ground" laws, war, on and on. These aren't small issues.

And even if it were only small issues we disagree on, why would we disagree at all, if God wrote morality into us?

> Adam and Eve were the first ENSOULED humans, not necessarily the literal first two hominids to ever exist on the face of the earth.

So what happened to all of the other hominids who were the same species as Adam and Eve? Did they all just suddenly die? Or did they stop reproducing, or what?

How is "why wouldn't he make us fully understanding of morals" not a real question? Just because it's causing you discomfort that you can't think of an answer?

Did you mean to reply to someone else? You didn't address my question at all.

Sounds like you might be a sociopath if you only do things out of self-preservation without caring about others.

So God "stamped moral character into our conscience" but just half-assed it, or what? Why wouldn't he make us fully conscious of the full breadth in his stamping?

> People with no moral basis in religion conclude that morality is subjective. Which is wrong, it is very objective. No society or people past or present has ever tolerated a thief for example.

Thieves tolerate thieves. There are entire organizations of organized thieves.

I don't think you know what the terms "subjective" and "objective" mean. Even if it were true that all humans find thievery to be wrong, that still doesn't make it an issue of objectivity.

> The idea that atheists are somehow less moral than believers is incorrect and downright stupid. There is absolutely no data to support the idea that atheists as a group are any less moral than any other randomly chosen group of people.

inb4 somebody points out the actions of atheist dictators, fallaciously focusing on body counts by a small handful of atheists rather than the actions of each individual atheist on Earth on average.

>Adam & Eve being the first humans does not go against the theory of evolution.

Yes, it absolutely does. Given evolution, there is no such thing as "the first two humans from whom all others descend."

As humans evolved from our ancestors we share with gorillas and bonobos, etc. - by the time there were two people in existence, there were TONS of people in existence, all having more humans. Not just two.

>The Great Flood was not a worldwide event. But it did happen.

I can't believe you actually believe the nonsense about collecting two of every animal aboard a giant boat. Like how the fuck does a human brain still think that.

>Man has an indelible moral character stamped on his conscience by the Creator - this much is true.

Then why do humans disagree so much on matters of morality? If morality is written into us by God, wouldn't all humans universally agree on every moral topic?

Then you two would disagree. What else are you looking for in an answer?

If God wrote morals into our design, why do humans disagree so much on what is moral and what isn't? Wouldn't we all universally agree on every moral issue?

Lol as if religions aren't made up.

It's not that mankind "invents" it, as if everyone gathers around a table and talks out what is moral and what isn't, it's that we evolved as social/tribal animals, whereby empathy was evolutionarily advantageous, which is why most of us have an aversion to things like murdering people, hurting others, etc. We see senses of empathy/"morality" even in lab mice.

Yes, it is conceivable/possible that humanity could continue to evolve, and somehow lose our social/tribal instincts, thus no longer naturally find murder to be wrong to do, but I would highly doubt that would ever happen.