most people know right from wrong.

it is an innate trait inherent in us all? what science is this based on? we have a brain that comes up with rules but the BELIEF that we all know right from wrong is purely dogmatic and there is absolutely nothing but evidence against it. i know when you sent that letter saying you would take the pro in this debate that we did not think alike. lol. we cant all be right about our moral views because we contradict each other. you have yet to come up with a single rebuttal for what im saying. you havent explained whether or not you believe it doesnt disprove free will and there has been no rebuttal. further more you ramble dogmatically about our knowledge of right and wrong without a single precept supporting your conclusions. what you are probably calling your premises are very weak premises that are in need of premises. i dont even think i need to say anything else but i will continue. you didnt even admit that most people are wrong about most precepts. well most people at one time thought it was righteous to rape women when the "god" you dont believe in ordered them to rape them or when their parents said it was ok to do so and forced them into marriage with you or when they spoke their minds as any abuse was then justifiable. cruel capital punishment like burning alive and hangings and tortures of really slow deaths of all kinds were once acceptable and now the same people (christians) believe that we should love everybody. the zen buddhists dont even believe in right and wrong. "there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so." how can their be right and wrong without goodness and badness? if nothing has a bad result then what makes it wrong? if nothing has a good result then what is right? my point is that these people dont even believe in right and wrong. many people in the past have thought that rape was ok. most people of one time call what we call rape acceptable. you can call different things by one name but they are still different and your doing something that is quite silly and pointless when you do that. if we change the definition of rape to allow for what we would have to call "justifiable" rape right now (as we consider the act rape) it doesnt change whether or not we are right in the act it just changes what we are calling it and means the exact same thing. some people change the definitions of words to make you think they are saying something that they are not i guess. and its pointless. no matter what you say, the meaning of what you say is all that matters. not the words used. if i were to say that healing people is wrong and my definition of wrong is actions that bring about good results then you would probably call what im calling wrong righteousness. and what i was saying was actually true by everyone but i made them think i was saying something that they disagreed with by using my own definition of a the word wrong. i could say a fish is a mammal and by mammal meaning the definition of fish but it wouldnt change the fact that a fish is the definition of fish. it doesnt change what it is. yes we have (for SOME time) called rape wrong but our definition of rape has changed so much that what was considered justifiable sexual intercourse is now considered rape so with our definitions rape has not always been wrong. now how can we know that "rape" is wrong while they think what we call rape is righteous? explain that one. unfortunately for you our moralities have changed much more than once. much more than a thousand times. probably millions of times. what percent of people can know everything when it comes to right and wrong? if you believe in moral progress you should believe that most people do not know right from wrong. every moral progress starts out with a handful of people who convince the their world of it. most people dont change on their own and have no premises for their moralities. if they have no premises their moralities are blind faith and they do not consist of knowledge therefore they do not know right from wrong. the conscience is proven to consist of vague reminiscences of precepts heard in early youth so it is never smarter than your mother father or nurse. Bertrand Russel in Why I A Not A Christian. it has also been proven that a lot of people use the part of the brain that deals with emotions when trying to determine right from wrong instead of the part of the brain that deals with reasoning. ever watched or read about "the science of evil" or "the experiment"? or anything about the brain? i doubt it. hate to see a christian believing that people know right from wrong. those who believe we know right from wrong dont see a need to change anything. people like me disprove your "facts" about right and wrong.