We don't even know that Jesus lived.

Not caring, or just speaking in terms the people understood?

So if it wasn't Jesus, it was Pedro, who used Jesus as an alias.

Uggghhh. Just ughh.

Jesus is to Buddha, who King Henry the 8th is to Alfred the Great.

Lol. Alfred the Great was a Christian

Jesus was just some poor Jewish carpenter who tried his best to get his message across. Think he could go spouting off rules? "It's ok to be gay! Let's change all the laws now!" He would be dead in two days.

I don't really understand all the hatred towards a man who simply preached love. It's kind of mind boggling when you think about it. People love John Lennon but hate Jesus, even though the former just preached the latter's message

if he could walk on water, he would be able to get away with almost anything

he should've had the romans take him to the emperor where he could demonstrate his magical powers and then explain how the cosmos works

who hates Jesus?

How come they crucified him then?

All that magic stuff is just myth

they crucified a lot of people

the whole story is myth

No, this is also wrong. I have in all those posts also explained why you were wrong, up until you started repeating yourself.

Anyway, I originally pointed out that atheists are free to believe in arbitrary sources of moral foundations. This seemed to annoy you, so you wound up in a spot where only god can issue such moral foundations. I wouldn't fret about this, as this is pretty much where most revealed theism ends up.

Yet you have yet to explain how or why this happens. Until you do, "God" as an explanation for such foundations is no more sound than "Goblins". In fact the only proper attempt at a defense (by RLK) so far merely tried to define god as the one making such foundations, but this would

a) be a tautology
b) make the hypothetical goblins god

Do you believe that Jesus did not exist, but somebody wrote the whole story himself?

It really comes down to choice. As it came down with Louis, he ended up believing in an abstract place where moral foundations exist. I think that place has a name for it: God. Some people don't like that term, or find it unnecessary, for whatever reason.

which story?

There has been no hate of Jesus. You made that up. There has been asking for evidence he was against slavery.

I believe the morality built upon a few basic axioms(*) already existed before the dawn of mankind. Just like I believe they will still exist when the last sentient being will have ceased to exist. Morality just happens to be irrelevant if there is no on it can apply to. The number 3 exist even if there is nothing to count. The concept of a lie exists even if there is no one to tell one. etc.

(*) for example:
-non-suffering is preferable to suffering
-joy is preferable to non-joy
-existence is preferable to non-existence

You are doing that thing again where you make up the definitions of words.

You are not making any sense. Morality exists no matter if anybody (let alone everybody) adheres to it. Morality is not a description of the status quo but of ideals.

Doesn't somebody always make up the definition of a word, when you get right down to it?

It was inaccurate of me to say that you ignored the question. You answered but kind of dodged the heart of the matter.
You argued the bolded. That only answers why slavery is immoral under this benevolent Christian god(1) which is far more specifice than just any god is necessary for objective morality(2).
Are you arguing for (1) instead of (2)?

No, we usually use agreed upon definitions because otherwise communication is futile.

Words are just signposts. Communication is an exchange of meaning. Without fleshing out concepts then communication is empty and without significant meaning.

Joy and Suffering are only experienced in the mind. Without a mind these concepts do not exist, so I don't see how these axioms could exist before there was any consciousness at all. If we had evolved differently, morality may very well be different because we may have perceived things differently.

It seems like you're trying to insist on the existence of an absolute moral system simply because our current moral system seems absolute to us. In the context of evolution, our current system of morality is arbitrary, as there was no imperative, direction, or intention. It's like the anthropic principle, in that our morality is compatible with the consciousness that evolved to observe it.

Any of them. Wait you think it was several people? Speak man!

I think your argument for a nebulous abstract moral sphere is consistent, so I'm fresh out of arguments on my side.

I didn't intentionally dodge - it seemed to me that was the question you were asking. At least I never said "OK there is no god. Now..."