Goodness Without God is Good Enough: William Lane Craig vs Paul Kurtz 5/7

pulling someones hair to save his life incurs the same loss of happiness as letting the man die in an accident?

no i never implied anything of the kind.
they are different because you balance net utility, utilitarianism, but with an element of justice...

sorry atheism is a nonbelief in god...your god has never put a perfect moral code out there, or any god, let alone followed it in his own right.

"pulling someones hair ...." This would only save his life, if this changed his behaviour.

There still 2 problems: First, we dont know what total effect on happiness our actions have. (Butterlfy effect).

Second: Happiness cannot be objectively measured, neither can it be added or subtracted so as to be put on an balance.

Thus overall happiness is no practical basis.

....no practical basis for morality.

"god has never put a perfect moral code out there"

I think he has. It is written on our consciousness. Every man has the ability to differentiate between moral right and wrong. Most people recognize what is right, when they see it, without having ever thought about morals or ethics.

And like every ability humans have, it either grows or atrophys, depending on how you use it. Its our choice.

Perhaps I didn't phrase my reply correctly. I don't deny that in a athiestic world view we are just animals. This means that humans are nothing special, that we are not moral agents. My point is that in an athiestic world view, on what grounds is our morality objective?
Most well aducated athiest now that there is no answer to the objective morality argument. This is why they eigther deny that moral objective standards exist or become agnostics. Athiesm and objective values are incompatable.