Atheists who announce "I'm good without god"

[RoadRunner79]

I’ll ask another way. What reasons or evidence lead you to this claim?    And while your hypothesis may not require a god, it also doesn’t lead to moral realism. Using evolution, as a standard, if a rape produces more offspring, then would that be considered moral?  I don’t believe that whatever tendencies tend to be passed on, by whatever means; is a very strong basis for morality. With this, you could kill all who are not like you, and call it moral.

---

Yes, I would believe in a real right and wrong apart from believing in God. I don’t think that this fits with a materialist world view though.

How do you know that? If your morality comes from god, on what basis do you determine whether or not your god is moral?

Do you not know right from wrong?

[Deesse23]

In addition, with God as the moral authority, it is not arbitrary, as morality is based on God's nature, which is unchanging and maximally great. 

#1 You know gods nature? Tell us more please about it, and how you know about it.
#2 His nature is unchanging? How comes he changed his mind so often as recorded in the bible?
#3 If gods nature is unchanging and authoritative, then please explain his unchanging, authoritative moral view on slavery. Do you agree with him that a human being should be able to own another human being as property?

[Abaddon_ire]

How do you know that? If your morality comes from god, on what basis do you determine whether or not your god is moral?

Do you not know right from wrong?

I do, but you claim that you do not.

[Whateverist]

How do you know that? If your morality comes from god, on what basis do you determine whether or not your god is moral?

Do you not know right from wrong?

Do you?  Please explain exactly how, as believers, the objective morals ordained by God are accessed by your selves but are inaccessible to all non-believers.  Last I heard this God was undetectable apart from the written accounts of His one and done grand appearance more than two thousand years ago.  So you have the book that contains those revelations written by men but you assume inspired by God.  Is that it?

Apparently what your lot has is the belief that the knowledge of right and wrong come indirectly from your God, provided you are correct in the assumption of the bible's provenance which you can't really establish beyond faith.  Do you really know right from wrong in any way better than any other human animal?  I don't think so.

[GrandizerII]

Oh, how cute. A link and a couple of statements that don't address what I'm asking you.

Are you going to get to the juicy bits yet? Or you're stalling or what?

Give me a good reason why beating your wife (or your wife beating you) is really wrong?

The moral argument is not about how you know what is really wrong, but there are some or even one thing that is actually wrong.   It's not about showing that beating your wife is wrong,  in fact, I'm kind of assuming that we agree on that point.   It's about ontology not epistemology.   So yes, I am avoiding the parts that are not pertinent to what I was discussing.   I don't want to go down rabbit trails.

You're doing that typical RR dodge again.

If there is no good reason that "this and that" are wrong, then to say that "this and that" are wrong is arbitrary. Such is not a morality worth having. If (on the other hand) there is a good reason, then your god isn't needed after all.

In your eyes, your favorite god may have decreed moral truths, but it doesn't make him the best explanation for objective morality because asserting your god doesn't explain why something is morally wrong.

This is not to say there aren't any philosophical problems when it comes to [secular] morality and ethics, but your god proposal doesn't actually solve these problems in any meaningful way, and it has its own problems that it suffers from, which theists have yet to effectively address.

---

In addition, with God as the moral authority, it is not arbitrary, as morality is based on God's nature, which is unchanging and maximally great. 

#1 You know gods nature? Tell us more please about it, and how you know about it.
#2 His nature is unchanging? How comes he changed his mind so often as recorded in the bible?
#3 If gods nature is unchanging and authoritative, then please explain his unchanging, authoritative moral view on slavery. Do you agree with him that a human being should be able to own another human being as property?

Don't you know, Deesse? God has always considered slavery to be wrong, but he was too concerned for the OT Israelites that he didn't want to deprive them of slaves, so he let them have slaves for their own wellbeing because that's how caring God is.

Oh, and at least God ordained a humane form of slavery in those days, not like the secular American type of slavery!

[Deesse23]

Oh, and at least God ordained a humane form of slavery in those days, not like the secular American type of slavery!

The one where you have to let your (fellow) hebrew slaves go after 7 years? Except of course, you give them one of your slave women to marry, and he loves her so much that he cant leave her after 7 years (she is still your property after all, as well as any potential children) and rather wants to become your slave for fucking ever?

The one where you take this poor SoB to the town elders and put an awl through his ear to mark him as your property for fucking ever and inherit him and his family to your childrens/successors? This one?

Yeah, pretty much morally authoritative and .....what was the word again....ah, yeah "maximally great".

[polymath257]

How do you know that? If your morality comes from god, on what basis do you determine whether or not your god is moral?

Do you not know right from wrong?

Has it ever happened that what you *felt* to be right was actually wrong or vice versa? Is it possible for our internal evaluation of morality to be wrong? Sure, there are clear cases, but is it possible to be wrong about more subtle cases?

In those cases, how do you determine what is right and what is wrong?

---

Oh, and at least God ordained a humane form of slavery in those days, not like the secular American type of slavery!

The one where you have to let your (fellow) hebrew slaves go after 7 years? Except of course, you give them one of your slave women to marry, and he loves her so much that he cant leave her after 7 years (she is still your property after all, as well as any potential children) and rather wants to become your slave for fucking ever?

The one where you take this poor SoB to the town elders and put an awl through his ear to mark him as your property for fucking ever and inherit him and his family to your childrens/successors? This one?

Yeah, pretty much morally authoritative and .....what was the word again....ah, yeah "maximally great".

Yeah....that's a humane form of slavery.....

[RoadRunner79]

Do you not know right from wrong?

I do, but you claim that you do not.

No I don’t. I may not be perfect, but I think that we both know and behave as if there is a real right and wrong; good and evil.

---

Do you not know right from wrong?

Do you?  Please explain exactly how, as believers, the objective morals ordained by God are accessed by your selves but are inaccessible to all non-believers.  Last I heard this God was undetectable apart from the written accounts of His one and done grand appearance more than two thousand years ago.  So you have the book that contains those revelations written by men but you assume inspired by God.  Is that it?

Apparently what your lot has is the belief that the knowledge of right and wrong come indirectly from your God, provided you are correct in the assumption of the bible's provenance which you can't really establish beyond faith.  Do you really know right from wrong in any way better than any other human animal?  I don't think so.

I’m not saying that objective morals are inaccessible to non believers. In fact, the moral argument relies on this. It seems that it is your fellow non believers, who argue that there is not a an objective morality, outside of the individual. It’s all based on feelings or something.

[polymath257]

I do, but you claim that you do not.

No I don’t. I may not be perfect, but I think that we both know and behave as if there is a real right and wrong; good and evil.

---

Do you?  Please explain exactly how, as believers, the objective morals ordained by God are accessed by your selves but are inaccessible to all non-believers.  Last I heard this God was undetectable apart from the written accounts of His one and done grand appearance more than two thousand years ago.  So you have the book that contains those revelations written by men but you assume inspired by God.  Is that it?

Apparently what your lot has is the belief that the knowledge of right and wrong come indirectly from your God, provided you are correct in the assumption of the bible's provenance which you can't really establish beyond faith.  Do you really know right from wrong in any way better than any other human animal?  I don't think so.

I’m not saying that objective morals are inaccessible to non believers. In fact, the moral argument relies on this. It seems that it is your fellow non believers, who argue that there is not a an objective morality, outside of the individual. It’s all based on feelings or something.

And I'm saying that believers are *less* likely to have good morals. Their superstitions get in the way of morality.

Witness all the current debates about gays being given basic rights.

[RoadRunner79]

No I don’t. I may not be perfect, but I think that we both know and behave as if there is a real right and wrong; good and evil.

---

I’m not saying that objective morals are inaccessible to non believers. In fact, the moral argument relies on this. It seems that it is your fellow non believers, who argue that there is not a an objective morality, outside of the individual. It’s all based on feelings or something.

And I'm saying that believers are *less* likely to have good morals. Their superstitions get in the way of morality.

Witness all the current debates about gays being given basic rights.

And you have no basis other than what... your own opinion for that? If morality is subjectiv, then you don’t really have an argument or basis for comparison.

Also, I don’t see hardly anyone saying that same sex attracted people should be denied basic human rights. Which you also can’t really argue with subjective morality. As I said, that most people have an inane sense of objective morality, makes me believe it’s true. In fact it’s difficult not to behave as if morals are objective.