Look at the animal kingdom and you’ll see a natural world full of death, rape, and violence with no basis in religion. If we’re animals that’s the baseline. By using the word atrocity you’re buying in to some definition of evil that has to come from a philosophical belief system, ie a faith, which could be directed toward God, the future of humanity, logic, a flat earth, or literally anything else.
> Look at the animal kingdom and you’ll see a natural world full of death, rape, and violence with no basis in religion.
True (although amongst some species no higher than our own, so not sure what point that proves).
> By using the word atrocity you’re buying in to some definition of evil that has to come from a philosophical belief system, ie a faith, which could be directed toward God, the future of humanity, logic, a flat earth, or literally anything else.
I don't know that you can believe in logic or the future of humanity.
Definitely not in the same way people believe in God.
As for where morality/our basis for human rights comes from if not from religion, Richard Dawkins explains best (in ~5min) how the source most probably isn't belief/faith/religion in this video --> (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XtvWkRRxKQ).
So, no to those that claim that, humans aren't special, and no, the good sides of morality don't come from religion, especially not from the modern ones with a "jealous" god (killing homosexuals, or punishing women when not wearsing something, however, if that is considered "morality", indeed provably does come from religion).
In that video Dawkins says he thinks religious morality is contemptible because it is based out of fear.
That is true, however look at the world we live in. A lot of people are not moral.
He admits the question asked of him is a "genuinely hard question:" using concepts of good and evil is an inherent admission in some faith in such concepts.
