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

[Statler Waldorf]

I would reply good people existed before Christianity. Mr. Hitchens also made a great point on this subject when he asked if murder, theft, and adultery were acceptable before the Decalogue. There are moral and ethical people in this community that do not believe.

That’s not even the point; the point is that you have no way of determining if a person is doing good deeds or evil deeds if no God exists.

You don't have an argument. You have presuppositional bald assertion, and are shifting the burden of proof onto the nonbeliever.

He who affirms has the burden of proof; you’re affirming that morality can exist without God so get to proving it.

And that's all you are capable of doing. You assert that morality is impossible without God, and every time you are presented with evidence of morality absent a belief in God, you still say "well, that morality is also from God! I win! Yaaaay!"

Do you know what the word morality means? Giving examples of atheists being nice is not pointing to atheistic morality. Morality is a normative system of behavior. You have presented me with no normative system of behavior that can exist without God. Until you do so my claim is completely justified.

You're the Sye Ten of moral apologetics. You can stand here and parrot "There's no morality without God," and all evidence to the contrary will be brushed aside and ignored, and buried under another page of Presuppositional Gish about how God is the only source of morality, ending with a "See? You can't prove God isn't the source of morality!"

Committing logical fallacy after logical fallacy is in no way the same thing as presenting evidence. You’re not fooling anyone.

As if proving a negative, null assertion you are too much of an intellectual failure to back up was anyone's responsibility, and it's our job to construct your argument from nonsensical assertions for you, and then knock them down.

This run-on sentence makes no sense.

You are a proud sociopath, incapable of grasping how anyone could be moral without the morally repulsive God of the bible, as you slither through threads insinuating and outright leveling obscene accusations at other forum members, until they're so disgusted by your slimy apologetics they ignore you.

Where did I say people cannot be moral without believing in God? I clearly said-numerous times to the point of ad nauseam- morality itself could not exist in an atheistic Universe. That’s a totally different claim that seems to fly right over your head every time it’s made. By the way, I follow the forum rules on here and have never received an infraction or even a formal warning so your accusations are desperately silly.

The amazing part is, your antics are transparent to everyone but yourself, you can't prove a single one of your bald assertions,

Fallacy of shifting the burden of proof; I do not have to prove a negative claim. Learn your logic.

…and every nonbeliever on this forum has stories of the ideological and moral reasons they left religion; many of them partially because of abuse suffered by the only people you claim can be moral.

Irrelevant. It’d be impossible to even whine about Christians being immoral if God did not exist because morality itself would not exist.

And yet you continue to cower behind your monitor, slinging insults and scumbag assertions about the moral character of anyone who doesn't believe the exact same things you do.

I have not attacked anybody’s moral character on here; you’ve soiled your own I am afraid.

You are a pathetic, small minded, self-absorbed, infantile, cretinous [sic] little man who comes here to scrawl insults penned in chewed, snot-covered crayon, demanding your ideas be given equal footing to those who repeatedly destroy them with ease.

Your tears, they taste so sweet! In all seriousness, are you going to actually provide an atheistic system of morality or am I safe in assuming you cannot do so?

The fact that you cannot comprehend why your fallacious arguments are so easily dismissed is all the more proof of your slack-jawed, knuckle-dragging, moronic, slut-shaming, loud-mouthed ignorance, and the stinking half-rotten rhetorical chum you vomit, mop up with your grubby fingers, and smear on the pages of Atheist Forums as "an argument."

Whining about an argument that is still standing un-refuted is not going to get you anywhere my child.

If morality were a race to the finish line, any referee worth his salt would turn the starter pistol on you, as a service to humanity, before making a call to animal control to scrape your putrid carcass off the track.

Still waiting for that refutation.

You are an insult to upstanding secular people, and to good Christians everywhere, and your mere existence is a concise summary of everything wrong with society and humanity, and for mothers to use as an example to their daughters of what type of man to avoid.

Poor baby.

I sincerely hope you are finished emptying your bowels into this thread, and demonstrating the arrogant, morally repugnant nature of human stains like yourself who hide their vile, slobbering countenances behind religion to insult their elders and betters while feigning moral superiority.

Elders? There is no way that you are over the age of 14.

I strongly suggest you lurch back to whatever restaurant dumpster you crawled out of, and close the lid out of common courtesy: We're all tired of your fetorous stench here.

Do you find it the least bit amusing that you are whining about personal insults with a thread filled with personal insults? What was that you were saying about atheists being nice people? Not all of them right?

Whining video

Where does his right to insult religion come from? This guy is almost as priceless as you are.

I think there is a combination of those factors. As a child it may suffice to be told that something is right or wrong. As we grow older we want to know why things are right and wrong, and we seek explanations and reasons to determine what is right and wrong.

Ok, what makes a particular action right or wrong then?

I believe that they were immoral acts. How do we tell who is right? I think we consider them in light of the standards that humanity has developed over time, and we consider the motivations and reasons of the people who carried out those acts in light of those standards.

So it is a majority rules kind of system then?

The problem is you don't. Therefore, an inaccessible/unknowable source of objective morality is pretty much an equivalent of a nonexistent source of objective morality. You have no objective morality there.

I don’t? Simply because you say so? You’ll have to do better than that.

And all killings that supposedly are according to his will are objectively right, right?

If they do not violate His decreed will then they are permissible. God has the right to destroy His creation through whatever means He likes.

Is this objectively right then?

1 Samuel 15
1 Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord. 2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

Yes that was absolutely acceptable because God decreed it. The Amalekites were brutal towards the Israelites after they left Egypt and God vowed to destroy them for their sins (Exodus 17), He has the right to use the Israelites to do so.

No, not the same. Don't be silly. 4 being an integer is not based on one's subjective opinion. It is an objective fact.

As are God’s decrees in scripture. Why is it an objective fact that 4 is an even integer when there are people of the opinion that it is not? You seem to think that a person’s opinion can affect the facts so why not this fact too?

Off to Vegas! Have a great weekend!