Reddit reviews Blood and Soil: A World History of Genocide and Extermination from Sparta to Darfur

You could look at:
Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction
or
Blood and Soil: A World History of Genocide and Extermination from Sparta to Darfur

​

>I'm not interested in what conclusion alex resenberg [sic] draws

He's mentioned in the original article I posted, the one you obviously didn't read. That's why I'm citing him.

>How does appealing to the natural world, on its own merits make it so one should not moralize about racism, sexism, social justice, gay right, animal rights, or what have you?

If atheism is correct, our moral intuitions evolved for the same "purpose" as a giraffe's neck, turtle's shell, bat's echolocation, and zebra's stripes: as a means of spreading the DNA of their recipients. Period. All such traits were "created" by environmental-genetic sifting. (Darwin 101 Refresher Course on Morality) Grounding a code of morality on this sandy foundation involves redefining "wrong" in bizarre ways: that which isn't conducive to evolution. But why should one care if his behavior contributes to a goal-less process? Wouldn't this system extol those who have umpteen out-of-wedlock children, and prohibit celibacy? Some successful aspects of our evolutionary heritage are positively evil, such as the more extreme manifestations of tribalism.

Earlier in this thread you cited slavery as wrong. Prove it. If the atheist maintains that his moral outrage at slavery is the result of tapping into some Real Divide between Good & Evil, it's his burden of proof to demarcate this distinction. What objective criteria are used to make the assessment? If the atheist means the prospect of slavery causes very, very, very unpleasant sentiments, so what? How does that make it binding on anyone else? Other species do it. Evolution introduced a nifty labor-saving gimmick and he's complaining?! Is it "wrong" for ants too?

When we say "X is wrong!" we mean more than "Yuck!" or "X isn't useful to the spread of DNA." We mean no one should do X -- even if they don't share our Yuck! and even if it is conducive to spreading DNA. Atheism cannot explain this or provide a foundation for it. Therefore this is an "undesirable consequence" of atheism. QED.

Furthermore, there isn't a single demonstration about "rights" in any branch of empirical science, deductive logic, or mathematics. No one has ever discovered a "right" with a telescope, microscope, particle collider, or petri dish. If you want to use the term, be prepared to define it and prove its existence.