what are we supposed to say again when christians ask us where we get our morality?

[Rampant.A.I.]

That's weird. I could have sworn I just posted prison statistics that clearly show more religious people have a very tenuous grasp on ethics as compared to atheists.
That’s not the argument. Stay relevant.

Strange how Waldorf ignores them in his Word Salad.

I have a tendency to ignore the red herring fallacy when it shows up.

I see. So, whenever someone presents information that shows your argument is bogus, rather than confront it, you pretend it's not topical.

He's in fact claiming the very morality the Bible supports: slavery, rape, genocide, abortion, murder... Is only wrong with God?

You’re committing the fallacy of equivocation with these terms. Secondly, yes these things would only be wrong if God exists.

I don't buy into your presuppositional bullshit, from your 2000-year-old tradition that has no claim to general ethics nor morality other than what they've stolen from other extant cultures.

Try to stay on topic, yourself. Repeating a claim doesn't validate the claim, it simply shows you have nothing else to support it.

It almost seems as if Waldorf Word Salad hasn't read the bible. Otherwise he would know any Christians who don't support such things are behaving ethically in spite of their religion instead of due to it.

No I have read the entire thing which is why I know that these terms have a historical meaning that differs from what they mean today and that laws under the Mosaic Covenant were replaced by the New Covenant ushered in by Christ. Nice try but you’re really only committing the red herring fallacy by bringing these things up. The argument is that such moral judgments would be impossible in a godless Universe, deal with that argument.

You don't have an "argument." You have dishonest trickery aimed at fooling the reader into believing your petty religious tradition has any bearing on the moral framework that existed far before your Abrahamic, myth-stealing tradition.

And no matter how he tries to ignore it, and repeat that only God is the source of morality, he can't seem to explain the statistics demonstrating Christians are far more likely to end up in prison for following biblical morality.

Even if you did give such statistics they’d be irrelevant regarding the topic of discussion.

You advanced the claim there is no moral action without your God.

I presented statistics that show your claim is false.

You repeated the claim, and seek to restrict the debate to within the fallacious claim you've hijacked this thread with, hoping no one would notice. What's it like to be a Compulsive Liar For Jesus?

The only explanation, it seems, is that Waldorf is attributing a person's innate conscience to God, without any support for his claim, and significant evidence against, as secular people seem to behave more ethically than the religious.

God’s common grace is extended to many. You’re dodging the issue though. How do you know what is right and wrong? By what you innately feel to be right and wrong? Seriously?

The same unsupported assertion, with nothing to back it up. What are you afraid of?

Citing four different studies, Zuckerman states: "Murder rates are actually lower in more secular nations and higher in more religious nations where belief in God is widespread." He also states: "Of the top 50 safest cities in the world, nearly all are in relatively non-religious countries."

As long as we are not counting unborn babies right?

Your holy book supports abortion, ordained and ordered by God. Red herring.

And these findings are not limited to murder rates, as rates of all violent crime tend to be higher in "religious" states. Zuckerman also points out that atheists are very much under-represented in the American prison population (only 0.2%).

This is completely irrelevant however, atheists could commit no crimes ever and it would not change the fact that they need God to exist in order to possess a logically coherent definition of morality. I completely understand why you’d try to change the subject.

Again, you are the one who entered a thread and threw down presupposed claims with nothing to back them up that "Without God, people behave immorally," and then ignored the statistics that show you're full of shit. What's it like being that full of shit?

Any response to the above, or will e continue selectively responding and demonstrating his confirmation bias?

I am in no way logically obligated to respond to irrational points. Bring up something relevant to the topic at hand and we’ll dance.

Sniveling and backpedaling has no bearing on relevance. If you can't support your argument by anything other than bald assertion, tap out.