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

[Rampant.A.I.]

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

No, when something is not relevant to the topic I properly identify it as such. The argument is that atheist’s cannot postulate a logically coherent and consistent definition of morality unless god exists and then you come in from left field babbling on about how few atheists are in prison.

Surely you're not actually dense enough to call demonstrable evidence of secular people having a better grasp of morality than Christians "babbling out of left field," then turn around and crap out a presuppositional platitude that "Morality ain't possible without no Jesus, mhmhm."

Are you really this stupid?

It has nothing to do with the topic. Nobody is arguing that atheists never do nice deeds or must believe in God in order to do so

Oh no: You misunderstand. The point was that secular people don't murder, or commit violent crimes, or end up in prison nearly as often as Christians do; and yet you somehow think this doesn't apply to your "Morality comes from God" argument.

It does?! Well, why hasn't it reached the Christians?

we are arguing that nice and good are completely meaningless terms in a purely natural world. Besides, disproportionate representation in prisons does nothing to demonstrate that that people group is somehow more immoral than any other.

Really? You don't think the fact that there are more Christians in prison than any other group, or that secular countries boast lower crime rates and decreased violence demonstrates anything? Did you not claim "morality comes from God," and unless you're talking about the God of the Sikahs or the B'hai, your argument falls flat on its face before it even gets out the door.

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.

Whether or not you buy into it is irrelevant, people do not get to simply opt out of the moral imperative contained in God’s commandments.

Oh, really? Do you have anything to support that claim? No? How about the statistics that clearly show a majority of Christians DO opt out of moral imperatives, and end up in prison?

I do not buy in to your presuppositions, if you can't support them logically there's no reason to

Secondly, making an appeal to the age of the book is also logically fallacious.

The guy making unsupported assertions is whining about logical fallacies? Referring to the age of the book because the morality contained within was culturally relevant in that day and age, and still contains bronze-age values you like to skim over and pretend aren't there.

Moreover, the ideas you've attempted to claim as unique to Christianity, like The Golden Rule and The 10 Commandments were stolen from other cultures and other traditions.

Put another way: I'm not saying your source material is outdated, I'm saying large parts of it are stolen from are moral traditions far predating Christianity, and the claim "All Morals Come From My God" is farcical. Your God did not invent morality, your God can't even follow basic moral principles as illustrated throughout both of your holy books.

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

Which claim are you referring to? Pointing out your fallacious logic?

The clam that all morality comes from God, and ethical behavior cannot exist without God, which you have still failed to support. You made the claim, you must support your claim. This is very basic, why are you having such a hard time with it? Because you believe your God is the source of all morality, therefore everyone should agree with you? That's not special pleading, that's straight-up special Walmart screaming tantrum in line because the guy in front of you won't buy your case of beer and the new Pokemon card set for you.

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.

Well if I do not have an argument then it should be pretty easy to refute, give me a logically coherent and consistent definition of morality that would apply in a purely material universe. I’ll wait…

There's nothing to refute. Thump your bible and howl about all morality originating from God. Until you can support that claim, you're just another noisy, irrational loon.

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

Correct, no action can be defined as moral or immoral without God existing. [/quote]

What is this, fucking amateur hour? You think your unsupported conclusion is fooling anyone but you? What are the logical premises leading to that conclusion? I've asked you many times to provide them, and yet you have failed utterly to do so. Why is that?

Because you have nothing but a claim.

I presented statistics that show your claim is false.

No, you did not; you presented statistics dealing with the religious affiliation of prisoners. This has nothing to do with whether or not an act can be defined as right or wrong without God.

Didn't work out so well for all those Christians in prison, did it. Did your parents have any children that lived? Or did they raise a parrot?

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?

No, I corrected your fallacious logic and attempted to steer you back on course so we could have a rational discussion. You seem to be perfectly content with dragging the discussion down rabbit holes about the irrelevant and then whining when I cast light upon your irrationality. Lying for Jesus? No, we live in a Christian Universe which means lying is morally wrong. Being logical for Jesus? Absolutely.

Where? What logic? How many times do you need to be asked to support the claim <without God there can be no morality> before it becomes abundantly clear to even you that it's an unsupported assertion, and calling it "logical" without any good reason to support it is circular?

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

I asked you a question; I did not repeat any assertion. I figured you could not answer it.

Answer what? If you can't support your claim, there's nothing to disprove!



It's just you making dumb fucking assertions that aren't connected to reality.

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

That’s actually false; even an accidentally induced miscarriage was punishable by death. They were far more civilized on the subject than we are today.

“If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband [v]may demand of him, and he shall pay [w]as the judges decide. 23 But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”- Exodus 21:22 (NASB)

Hosea 13:16 - Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

2 Kings 8:12 - And Hazael said, Why weepeth my lord? And he answered, Because I know the evil that thou wilt do unto the children of Israel: their strong holds wilt thou set on fire, and their young men wilt thou slay with the sword, and wilt dash their children, and rip up their women with child.

2 Kings 15:16 - Then Menahem smote Tiphsah, and all that [were] therein, and the coasts thereof from Tirzah: because they opened not [to him], therefore he smote [it; and] all the women therein that were with child he ripped up.

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?

No, the original post was concerning a very specific Christian argument. Namely, that the very definition of goodness requires that God exists. If you want to be ignorant and think the argument is something else and waste your time arguing for the irrelevant by all means continue to do so. However, every time you run into a theist who understands the argument you are going to get drubbed just like you were against me. Your stubbornness and ignorance makes my job easy so I cannot say I mind it.

Sucks you can't support your claim, though. You keep on repeating it, and saying it's logical, but can't support it.

And not for lack of me asking you to provide logical reasoning. All you have is "nuh uh but there's no morals without God though."

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

First you claimed that your statistics refuted my argument,

Incorrect, your argument lacks support, and relies on presupposition. The statistics refute the plausibility of such a claim even being advanced.

next you claimed that my argument was something different from the one in the original post, and now you seem to think it is something entirely different. It seems you’re going to have to get on the same sheet of music with yourself before any sort of debate is even remotely possible.

What argument? *Squak* "Ain't no morals without God! *Squak!* is not an argument. You came into this thread with a bottle of lotion and a box of kleenex, dropped your pants, and expect no one to ask just what the hell you think you're doing?

If you can't present and defend your argument -- which, by the way, should be posted in a separate thread, possible titles of which being:
"Who Wants to Hold Little Statler And Apply Lotion"
"Here's My Unsupported Claim: Make My Argument For Me"
Or "Morality Comes From God: But I Come To God"

Then you don't have a leg to stand on. You have a conclusion that is not supported, by anything other than your personal enthusiastic acceptance of anything apologetics shovels out.