Since he was replying to me I assume you are calling me illogical. At least you could have the courtesy of making that accusation explicitly to me.

I wasn't calling you illogical! I was just trying to call attention to the many biblical musings that defy logic. I'm assuming you'd agree with that?

It's been a while, but I don't think you believe that we're all descended from a single family on a boat built by a 900 year old man. Right?

That is a pretty important specification that should be spelled out at the beginning of the debate. Nothing I said requires a Christian God or that all of the stories of the Bible be literally true.

Sorry but I am dropping this thread. The discussion is just too much work for too little gain. The statements are internally inconsistent and the counterarguments are gravitating to a discussion of Biblical details rather than the much broader and more interesting question of the nature of morality. A lot of fuzzy thinking imo. Some of you really need to raise your game if you are going to pretend to be logical thinkers.

Btw- I assume most people don't believe in animal heaven, yet many species have their own set of societal norms. Even within a wild pack of wolves, "All is not permitted without god".

Can the conversation end right there?

That's a shame. I don't like fuzzy thinking (but realize I'm sometimes susceptible to it). If my thinking is fuzzy, I'd like to have it pointed out. Don't be lazy. I took the time to point out where I think you're thinking is fuzzy.

I'll take the trained dog over the atheist carpet-pooping dog anytime!

Bet God woundt. Bet he'd rather have someone who thinks over their morality and even changeless his then go's, yes master. If there was one...

That doesn't even make sense. Care to try again?

Its your analogy! You say the God-fearing dog is nicely trained to poop outside but you don't like it. So you must like the atheist dog who can poop anywhere.

Haha. I never said anything about a god fearing atheist dog. I'm starting to think you're too thick to follow the conversation.

After thinking about it, maybe it's me who is misunderstanding you...

Is your point that it's better to be unthinking, but trained?

Yep. Better for society. Train first, think later.

The point, which is very simple, is that an atheist can of course believe in some objective morality from an arbitrary source. This is completely unproblematic and to me it seems no more unreasonable than assuming it comes from "a god". You might find such a belief completely inane. Which is fine, it is not a belief I hold personally. I also happen to think believing morality comes from a "god" is not reasonable.

If you define or hold as a premise that anything that gives absolute morality is "a god", then it is of course given that an atheist could not believe in absolute morality.

I could make a similar argument and claim that that money only comes from leprechauns, therefore anyone who refutes the existence of green goblins refutes the existence of money.

Neither are good arguments.

I'll also add that these long arguments about what "atheists must believe" are silly. They all tend to bog down to some claim that atheists have to be existential nihilists and materialists.

Atheism come in many forms, many atheists are even religious or hold various spiritual beliefs when it comes to morality.

I think they have something very similar in North Korea. Why don't you check it out and report back?

There is no "perfect" or absolute morality with or without God. God doesn't speak or have beliefs, thoughts, or opinions.

The anger or hate that can influence behavior is "not of God" and the compassion and empathy is "of God". It's binary like that.

Just so I follow: Where else could an absolute morality come from, if not a god? I'm having a hard time coming up with any other arbitrary source.

I wanna say that the bible disagrees with you.

That wouldn't be true even if atheists had no morals. That's just simple game theory.

It can come from a standard set of rules with which any external observer can assess whether a particular action is more or less moral than any other action. With a standard set of rules, an independent assessor should come up with the same answer as any other.

Of course, the logical question to follow from this would be, what standard set of rules might exist that can be used to assess morality of an action?

A standard rule could be that moral actions are defined by those which maximize "well-being", so if "well being" can be defined then you have a standard way which any action can be measured.

Of course this only works if everyone agrees to the measurable criteria being followed. Without agreement, then absolute morality doesn't exist.

Which obviously will never happen since people can't agree on anything... so what now?

I'm not saying atheists don't have morals, just not an absolute morality. I'd love for one to prove me wrong but so far that hasn't happened.

Not sure I understand your point about game theory.

It is pretty clear to anyone who looks at life honestly, that it is chaos and decay. If you could look at life in each moment with clear eyes as if through a microscope, all you would ever see is change. Nothing about a person is fixed; without an eternal soul, there is no identity - that would just be an illusion. So people without faith who think they are honest thinkers: how do you not go insane? Do you just accept that your sense of identity is an illusion and tolerate the fact that you are being deceived by grey matter in your brain (or whatever portion of the brain lights up when you think about yourself)?

So far I mostly see responses to stuff posters have put in their own heads about the issue. They're attacking straw men that are easy to knock down, but I haven't seen one satisfying answer to my question and until I do I'm just going to have to assume they don't have one.

There are very intelligent atheists out there. Nietszche was one and his whole project in my opinion was the answer to this question.

Why would I go insane?