My faith is on hold.

[Joods]

Atheists develop senses of right or wrong - all without the help of a god.

In a believer's mind, atheists do develop those senses with the help of god. They just don't acknowledge the divine guide as their origin.

The philosophers of old (think Aquinas) would say that good is that which aligns with "natural law", where this "natural law" represents the actual purpose for which each being or structure is intended. A good example they like to trot out, nowadays, is sex - sex has the purpose of procreation; using it for anything else is bad or wrong. The pleasure that one feels from sex is just an evolved construct to impel individuals to actually have sex and, thus, procreate. Pleasure is not the purpose of sex.
God, as the originator of this natural law, defines what is good. If you, the atheist, follow natural law, regardless of how you came to such a following, you are doing good.

Then we can challenge that thinking by telling them to provide evidence that a god, any god, is the originator. If they try to cite the bible, then we can further challenge this by asking for physical proof via the Scientific Method. 

I know, I know, heads will spin, but really, if they are making that claim, they should be required to back it up, right?

[WinterHold]

Repeat and rewind...

[FatAndFaithless]

How many days this time until you come back with utter assurance and authority in your theism, and tell us how immoral we are and that we are committing a horrible sin deserving of torture for not believing the things you do? Sorry MK, I just find it impossible to take anything you say seriously or reasonably.

[Edwardo Piet]

How many days this time until you come back with utter assurance and authority in your theism, and tell us how immoral we are and that we are committing a horrible sin deserving of torture for not believing the things you do?  Sorry MK, I just find it impossible to take anything you say seriously or reasonably.

I guess at least he's honest about his crazy immoral beliefs when he holds them and also honest about his less crazy beliefs when he drops some of his crazier and more immoral ones.

[FatAndFaithless]

How many days this time until you come back with utter assurance and authority in your theism, and tell us how immoral we are and that we are committing a horrible sin deserving of torture for not believing the things you do?  Sorry MK, I just find it impossible to take anything you say seriously or reasonably.

I guess at least he's honest about his crazy immoral beliefs when he holds them and also honest about his less crazy beliefs when he drops some of his crazier and more immoral ones.

He seems to switch foundational beliefs based on which way the wind is blowing that day, though apparently keeps the self-righteousness and assuredness regardless.  I guess you can call that 'honest,' but trying to engage with him is like trying to grab wind - it's impossible to pin him down and figure out exactly (or vaguely, even) what he believes.  Forgive my skeptical eyebrow raise at this "faith on hold" epiphany.

[pocaracas]

In a believer's mind, atheists do develop those senses with the help of god. They just don't acknowledge the divine guide as their origin.

The philosophers of old (think Aquinas) would say that good is that which aligns with "natural law", where this "natural law" represents the actual purpose for which each being or structure is intended. A good example they like to trot out, nowadays, is sex - sex has the purpose of procreation; using it for anything else is bad or wrong. The pleasure that one feels from sex is just an evolved construct to impel individuals to actually have sex and, thus, procreate. Pleasure is not the purpose of sex.
God, as the originator of this natural law, defines what is good. If you, the atheist, follow natural law, regardless of how you came to such a following, you are doing good.

Then we can challenge that thinking by telling them to provide evidence that a god, any god, is the originator. If they try to cite the bible, then we can further challenge this by asking for physical proof via the Scientific Method. 

I know, I know, heads will spin, but really, if they are making that claim, they should be required to back it up, right?

They would argue that everything in the material world has features, like circularity, triangularity, wetness, luminosity, etc... and existence, or being... These features represent degrees of approximation to a conceptual perfect circle, triangle, wet(?), light(?), etc... existence/being.
Anything that exists, anything that is, is an instance of existence.
The bare existence itself, without the need for any actual thing existing, the concept of existence, is the starting point for everything that subsequently exists. This bare existence, this bare being (not a being or entity, but being itself from the verb to be), is what they call god.
Under this view, god (bare conceptual existence) is indeed the originator of all existing things.

When you think of the concept of a circle or a triangle, you may have a rough picture of a circle or triangle in your mind, but you also have a mathematical entity that is perfect in circularity, having no polygonal character at all, or a triangle with perfectly straight lines and point, unidimensional vertices. The concept of these features is perfect. Nothing in reality can achieve such perfection. No circle in reality can be made up of non polygonal parts - you're limited to the plank length.
Much like these concepts are perfect, god is also perfect existence, perfect being.
Since all other concepts exist, god also encompasses them.




The rub, to me, is at the start of this whole ordeal... Are these concepts, these features, are these metaphysical properties something that exist in the absence of a mind drawing patterns out of reality? Or are they the patterns that said mind forms upon investigating reality and extrapolating into perfect forms?
I lean to the second option... if this is a valid dichotomy.
This also touches an old question of "is mathematics invented or discovered?"
Is metaphysics invented or discovered?

I vote invented. Theists vote discovered.





Everything else ever claimed about any god should flow from this metaphysical realm.
Any god not grounded on it, just can't be real.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I honestly haven't really thought too much about this concept of dynamic morality I am writing about.

That morality is different person to person, there is no one size fit all, and everyone has different approaches and standards of how they develop themselves.  Two complete opposite paths,  both may be right for both persons with exact same circumstances but different taste they developed.

I haven't thought about. I am going to see the dialogue in Quran with this topic. 

The arguments for guides, authority of God, etc, exact designation of them, consistent way, etc, still ring true, but guidance would be more individualistic and everyone would have their own path to follow by the spirit guide.

I believe at this moment Quran dealt with this. It's just that I don't know enough of both sides to make a decision.


And there is religions it seems that to believing in unseen guidance from God to him, but are more of this individualistic choosing.

I have to give them more thought.

There is no escaping from personal choice. That alone is not a reason to abandon one's faith; but rather, a call to choose wisely. May God grant you wisdom my friend.