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

[GrandizerII]

Sure, murder is any killing of another person that violates God’s decreed will.

And do you know what God's will is exactly? Nowhere in the Bible is it made clear what is the boundary between accepted killing and murder.

God in the Bible decreed more than once that babies be slaughtered by the sword. Is killing babies not objectively wrong?

---

Thank you for proving my point: You get your morality from The Bible.

The bible. The bible is a claim, not evidence.

And his opinions regarding what the Bible says.

[Tonus]

Care to elaborate?

As an infant, I probably picked some trinket or other item off of a table out of curiosity, only to be immediately and sharply admonished "not to take anything that isn't yours." This may have been reinforced by a slap on the hand. This is the earliest form of moral training, akin to god giving a commandment. For the infant and young child, the questions I mentioned earlier are at the heart of any consideration of theft. What did I stand to gain, and at what cost?

As I got older, I probably had the notion that theft is bad reinforced in any number of ways aside from the gain/cost calculation. People will discuss theft disdainfully, and few people ever speak of it in a positive manner (the few positive examples of theft would likely be in stories like Robin Hood, where the theft is driven by the desire to right another wrong, and not for selfish reasons). It's likely that I had things stolen from me as well, and the feelings involved reinforced the negative feelings regarding theft.

At some point along the way I was able to consider the reasons why I felt that theft is wrong and establish concepts like ownership and respect for the property of another and use these to develop a conscience that helps me to resist stealing even when the potential gain seems to outweigh the possible costs.

White Americans gained an awful lot through the antebellum slave trade of the 18th and 19th Centuries, the Germans gained a vast amount of scientific knowledge through conducting scientific tests on the Jewish people so were those acts morally justified then?

I think that the people who committed those acts justified them as moral and may have even believed that they were moral. I do not consider them moral acts, regardless of when they were committed, and I believe that most people today would feel the same.

[Statler Waldorf]

We aren't supposed to say anything, because we don't owe Christians an explanation of our morals. They can't justify theirs, so why should we?

I am not so sure that allowing an argument to stand un-refuted is the best strategy to follow; especially when your opponent believes you are incapable of refuting their challenge.

And you need to get your prescription checked if you can't see the sources at the footer of a Wikipedia article.

If the writer of the article is incapable of following the websites article policy then I have no confidence in their ability to properly cite the primary research. Surely you can do better.

and it is well supported morality is evolved social contract and evolved instinct.

Well supported how? You’ve given no example of a normative system of behavior in this thread so you have yet to even touch on the subject of morality.

Notice the videos posted showing 3 month old babies can determine right from wrong. Evolution is demonstrable. God is not demonstrable.

You posted nothing of the sort. The video you posted showed that babies will prefer one puppet over another and that’s all. Infants will deceive their parents by pretending to be hungry when they really only want attention, is lying to your parents morally good behavior then? Secondly, you’ve done nothing to explain how you know that feeling empathy is in fact morally good and not morally evil. Lastly, we live in a world created by a morally good God who owns everyone so I would not be at all surprised if infants did have a moral conscious so you’ll have to do better. Is an act morally good or morally evil in a Universe where God does not exist?

That's not conflating ontology with belief.

Saying that atheists do not believe in God and they behave morally is certainly conflating the two. “You do not need air in order to breathe, babies do not even believe in the existence of air and they breathe just fine!”

That's pointing out your belief in something because it is written in a book.[/b] The only experience you have of your God, other than hallucinations you pretend are God, is from a book. If you explained Gravity as produced by a psychokenetic purple turtle floating in the Kupiter belt, your explanation of gravity would be wrong. Similar to your unsupported claims to morality. Your God didn't exist before 2000 years ago. Your belief does not conform to, nor does it dictate reality.

Rhetorical fluff. According to your reasoning gravity does not need to exist in order for us to walk around on Earth because many people do not believe in gravity and they walk around just fine!

Belief in YHWH is a lot older than 2,000 years by the way, I wish you had a better grasp of the basic facts because I hate wasting my time correcting you.

IF YOU CANNOT DEMONSTRATE YOUR GOD EXISTS, you can not [sic] begin to advance nor support the claim "Morality is from God."

The existence of morality demonstrates that God exists silly boy.

You have written page after page of Argument from Ignorance, ignoring any counter-argument as "unsupported."

No, trying to argue that atheists can define morality in a logically defensible manner that is consistent with their atheism even though none has done so to date is actually an argument from ignorance. I am simply making the negative claim here.

<God Exists>

Where did I assert that?

<Objective Morality Exists>

Where did I assert that?

<Evolutionary Psychology does not explain morality>

That’s a negative claim, so you actually have the burden of proof on that one. So get to it toots.

<Psychology does not explain morality>

It doesn’t. Another negative claim by the way; you’ve got your work cut out for you.

<God is the only possible source of morality>

Yup, a claim that is supported by you and still standing un-refuted.

<God is the source of morality>

He is the ultimate standard of what is right and wrong yes.

<Gods morality can contradict human morality yet still be the source of human morality>

Where did I assert that?

<An omniscient being who commands rape, infanticide, and slavery can be a source of morality>

God never commands rape or infanticide and antebellum slavery would not have been morally permitted in Biblical times.

<The Bible is inspired by God>

I never actually asserted this but yes that’s a true statement.

You have utterly failed to support even one of these claims, and yet you feign concern about MY citations?

I failed to support them according to whom? You? That’s ironic considering the fact that you’ve been my best support for those claims in this thread.

I already have, repeatedly. Yet you're too willfully ignorant to consider the fact that morality is an evolved social mechanism.

I have pointed out numerous times that you’re irrational by trying to do so because you are committing the naturalistic fallacy and that makes me the ignorant one how? I will never apologize for valuing rationality more than you do.

God commands murder, rape and infanticide.

Nope. It’d be impossible for God to command murder because murder by moral definition is a violation of God’s decreed will; so that is a nonsensical statement.

They are morally wrong because we have evolved to view them as morally wrong, because it is beneficial as a tribal animal to do so.

What about those people who do not view them as morally wrong? Did they evolve this view as well? Whose evolved view of morality is right and whose is wrong then?

If God were the only source of morality, we would not be able to see God's behavior in the Bible as immoral.

Yes! That is why none of God’s actions are immoral.

Because I don't need a cheat sheet for morality. You do.

That’s ironic considering you posted that in a thread where an atheist essentially was asking for a cheat sheet. You do require a cheat sheet since you claim Darwinism explains morality and you had to be taught Darwinism.

You can't grasp morality without a book explaining right from wrong in big, block letters.

No I can because we live in a Universe created by a morally good God who owns everyone. That is precisely why you know right from wrong in your heart as well.

"Social Darwinism" has absolutely nothing to do with Evolution. Google it. Educate yourself.

Nice to see you trying to defend your faith. Spencer was a very good little Darwinist though. Darwinism does not cease to be Darwinism simply because it is applied to people. Unless of course you want to argue that Darwinian mechanics do not actually apply to people.

Because society agrees it is morally wrong, and our evolved conscience determines it is wrong.

Did those people who do not view child rape as morally wrong evolve that view as well? Why is one evolved view of rape morally good and the other morally wrong?

You keep repeating the same questions that have already been answered. Do you have some sort of learning disorder that prevents you from absorbing new information?

No, I have a rational mind. If you give me an irrational answer I will simply ask the question again. A normative system of behavior cannot be logically derived from purely descriptive statements, which is precisely what you keep trying to do. In logic you are not allowed to introduce anything in your conclusion that is not contained in any of your premises. This lesson in logical reasoning was free.

Prove it. You keep asserting this, but have yet to offer a single shred of evidence.

I am making the negative statement, stop trying to shift the burden of proof off of yourself. If you think that an atheistic definition of morality can exist then by all means prove it. Until you do I am completely justified in believing that morality cannot exist in a purely atheistic universe.

*All of us are well aware this is your ultimate goal. You make fallacious claims you can't support, and you continue to make them until people get tired of replying to them, and then you dance around in your underpants thinking you've won a debate.

All of us? Please tell me it does not take more than one of you to type these responses.

You haven't. You're simply delusional, and ranting at us to reinforce deep seated delusions.

Us? Calling me delusional does not make your position any less irrational I am afraid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

This only applies to scientific arguments; I am making a logical argument. Fail again.

How do you know God's Decreed Will? Because it's written in The Bible.

Yes, that’s why it is called His decreed will.

Thank you for proving my point: You get your morality from The Bible.

Nope, we get our morality from God who made special revelation to us in scripture.

The bible. The bible is a claim, not evidence.

“The Bible is a claim, not evidence” is a claim and not evidence.

And do you know what God's will is exactly?

We know His decreed will because He explicitly decreed it; hence the name.

Nowhere in the Bible is it made clear what is the boundary between accepted killing and murder.

I just gave it to you. If a killing violates God’s decreed will then it is murder. We find that is consistently the case in scripture.

God in the Bible decreed more than once that babies be slaughtered by the sword. Is killing babies not objectively wrong?

I need to know what verse(s) you are referring to. All killings that violate God’s decreed will are objectively wrong.

That’s a rather meaningless objection, that’s like trying to say that 4 is not objectively an even integer because some students are of the opinion that odd numbers are exactly divisible by 2.

[quote='Tonus' pid='683220' dateline='1402135689']
As an infant, I probably picked some trinket or other item off of a table out of curiosity, only to be immediately and sharply admonished "not to take anything that isn't yours." This may have been reinforced by a slap on the hand. This is the earliest form of moral training, akin to god giving a commandment. For the infant and young child, the questions I mentioned earlier are at the heart of any consideration of theft. What did I stand to gain, and at what cost?

As I got older, I probably had the notion that theft is bad reinforced in any number of ways aside from the gain/cost calculation. People will discuss theft disdainfully, and few people ever speak of it in a positive manner (the few positive examples of theft would likely be in stories like Robin Hood, where the theft is driven by the desire to right another wrong, and not for selfish reasons). It's likely that I had things stolen from me as well, and the feelings involved reinforced the negative feelings regarding theft.

At some point along the way I was able to consider the reasons why I felt that theft is wrong and establish concepts like ownership and respect for the property of another and use these to develop a conscience that helps me to resist stealing even when the potential gain seems to outweigh the possible costs.

So is theft wrong because you had it reinforced to you as a child or is there some higher reason that theft is wrong? I am just trying to get a handle on what your ultimate standard is here.

I think that the people who committed those acts justified them as moral and may have even believed that they were moral. I do not consider them moral acts, regardless of when they were committed, and I believe that most people today would feel the same.

So were they immoral acts? How do we know whose opinion is right?

[Zack]

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.

[Rampant.A.I.]

We aren't supposed to say anything, because we don't owe Christians an explanation of our morals. They can't justify theirs, so why should we?

I am not so sure that allowing an argument to stand un-refuted is the best strategy to follow; especially when your opponent believes you are incapable of refuting their challenge.

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

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!"

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!"

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.

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.

And then you claim victory.

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

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.

You are a pathetic, small minded, self-absorbed, infantile, cretinous 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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Tonus]

So is theft wrong because you had it reinforced to you as a child or is there some higher reason that theft is wrong? I am just trying to get a handle on what your ultimate standard is here.

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.

So were they immoral acts? How do we know whose opinion is right?

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.

[GrandizerII]

And do you know what God's will is exactly?

We know His decreed will because He explicitly decreed it; hence the name.

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 need to know what verse(s) you are referring to. All killings that violate God’s decreed will are objectively wrong.

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

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.’”

And his opinions regarding what the Bible says.

That’s a rather meaningless objection, that’s like trying to say that 4 is not objectively an even integer because some students are of the opinion that odd numbers are exactly divisible by 2.

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.

[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!

[Rampant.A.I.]

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.

That's your claim. You need to logically support this claim, otherwise it can and will continue to be dismissed out of hand.

Are you capable of presenting an argument to support this?

Hint: "Nuuuuh but you dunno whar yur moral come frum an um a geddum frum mah bible" is not good enough.

You've already been told:

Social principles beneficial to a tribal animal.
Evolved empathy.

Both are displayed in other nonhuman species. You claim these must come from God in humans, but have yet to tell us why you believe this, and support it with a compelling argument backed by evidence.

[Tonus]

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?

Theft, for example, is something that I would not want to have happen to me. Therefore I can reason that it is wrong to take something that belongs to another based on that.

So it is a majority rules kind of system then?

I think that's part of it. We are social creatures and we seem to place a great deal of import in fitting in and being accepted into our local community or society. I think that there is at least some level of peer pressure that drives local standards of behavior, which is why otherwise minor social cues (how polite we are, for example) might change the way we are treated from one place to another.

Have fun in Vegas.