The moral argument, for atheism!

[RoadRunner79]

There are people that think that the Earth is flat as well.   It doesn't effect the objective truth of the matter (which is why it is objective).

It does indicate some people didn't get the morally unambiguous memo from the morally perfect and all-powerful being.

So then the flat earth people just haven't gotten the memo?

[Mystic]

Wait for...

“Free will”
“Mysterious ways”
“Who are you to question”

In 5...

4...

3...

You forgot, “he is telling you; you just aren’t listening right!”

That's exactly the proper answer, it's the rational one, and the truth, and God doesn't force people acceptance of the proof while they are averse to it. If they hate it, they hate it, he is not going to force them to accept it nor force a person to seriousness in the sacred journey or reverence in a how a holy book should be approached.

[The Valkyrie]

Major Premise:  If an objective moral lawgiver ("God") exists who is the source of objective morality, then God must be morally good.

Minor Premise:  If a moral, infinite being exists, then such a being has moral obligations, namely, to reveal, unambiguously, objective moral truths to Us, His Creation.

Conclusion:  Since such a clear revelation has never occurred, therefore, god does not exist.

I find do not murder to be fairly unambiguous.

So do I, in theory.

It depends on how you wish to define “murder”.

Does it include the inhabitants of the land you want?
Or those who don’t believe as you do?
Or even kids being rebellious?

[LadyForCamus]

Or they rebelled despite God sending Messengers who were brought out the unseen of God's Name to the outward, in all stages, and spread the clear message, and connected it to the highest subtle truths so they may know they delivered God's message.

Then god isn’t doing so well at his job, now is he?

[Angrboda]

You forgot, “he is telling you; you just aren’t listening right!”

That's exactly the proper answer, it's the rational one, and the truth, and God doesn't force people acceptance of the proof while they are averse to it. If they hate it, they hate it, he is not going to force them to accept it nor force a person to seriousness in the sacred journey or reverence in a how a holy book should be approached.

My father used to tell me that I simply, "wasn't holding my mouth right."

He was joking, of course. You, unfortunately are not.

[Brian37]

Major Premise:  If an objective moral lawgiver ("God") exists who is the source of objective morality, then God must be morally good.

Minor Premise:  If a moral, infinite being exists, then such a being has moral obligations, namely, to reveal, unambiguously, objective moral truths to Us, His Creation.

Conclusion:  Since such a clear revelation has never occurred, therefore, god does not exist.

There is no moral argument for being a theist or atheist. There is only evolution. Of course old mythology and claims of super natural beings which are nothing more than human projections are crap, the word "atheist" is not a moral code. I merely means "off" on claims of deities/gods/supernatural.

It does not mean the person holding the "off" position will only do good their entire life. I have known atheists in my past whom I hate on economic issues. Ayn Rand who said "'fuck you I got mine" to me is not moral, but neither are the atheists who sport the "Che" avatar whom think his "revolution" that lead to Castro's Cuba was a good thing.

"Atheist" is NOT a moral code and neither is any other label. You are either a decent human or you are not. The only thing an atheist can argue logically is that our species behaviors are not coming from a divine source from above. 

God does not exist of course, but that does not mean human behavior is a patent owned by atheists. 

God does not exist yes, I agree. But unfortunately humans project their own qualities into the form of non existent Superman form. 

Claims of "revelation" have always existed, scientific? Of course not. But lets not assume if the world's 7 billion were suddenly all atheist, that there would be no divisions or conflict.

[RoadRunner79]

I find do not murder to be fairly unambiguous.

So do I, in theory.

It depends on how you wish to define “murder”.

Does it include the inhabitants of the land you want?
Or those who don’t believe as you do?
Or even kids being rebellious?

I think that you may be oversimplifying and missing some context, but this is a separate subject, so I’m not going to divert things.

[LadyForCamus]

You forgot, “he is telling you; you just aren’t listening right!”

That's exactly the proper answer, it's the rational one, and the truth, and God doesn't force people acceptance of the proof while they are averse to it. If they hate it, they hate it, he is not going to force them to accept it nor force a person to seriousness in the sacred journey or reverence in a how a holy book should be approached.

Hey, remember that time I asked you for external evidence for your god, and you couldn’t present any? And, then I explained to you how using the Quran to prove the claims of the Quran is begging the question, and instead of addressing the fallacy in your argument, you got pissed off and insulted me?  You wanna try again?  Where’s your external corroborating evidence? Or put another way, why should I believe this crap is true?

---

You forgot, “he is telling you; you just aren’t listening right!”

That's exactly the proper answer, it's the rational one, and the truth, and God doesn't force people acceptance of the proof while they are averse to it. If they hate it, they hate it, he is not going to force them to accept it nor force a person to seriousness in the sacred journey or reverence in a how a holy book should be approached.

You have no evidence that it is the truth, as we’ve already established.

[Mystic]

Or they rebelled despite God sending Messengers who were brought out the unseen of God's Name to the outward, in all stages, and spread the clear message, and connected it to the highest subtle truths so they may know they delivered God's message.

Then god isn’t doing so well at his job, now is he?

God doesn't force us to accept the proof while we are averse to it.

[LadyForCamus]

Then god isn’t doing so well at his job, now is he?

God doesn't force us to accept the proof while we are averse to it.

Hey, remember that time I asked you for external evidence for your god, and you couldn’t present any? And, then I explained to you how using the Quran to prove the claims of the Quran is begging the question, and instead of addressing the fallacy in your argument, you got pissed off and insulted me?  You wanna try again?  Where’s your external corroborating evidence? Or put another way, why should I believe this crap is true?