And do you know what there is no point argueing with you because you so deluded that you will always arrive at the conclusion that there is a magic man in the sky who has a list of things he doesn't want you to do, and if you do one of these things he will send you to burn in a fire forever, but he loves you.

If there is one god and thousands (millions?) of fake gods, how do we know that your god is the real god?  The real god might even be female!

If a god exists then it seems that trying to fit religious ideas of one of the many supposed gods would be a poor strategy.  A better strategy would be to be nice to other people, protect the weak, feed the hungry, etc.  Almost all religions favor such things.

Any religious effort spent on supporting or learning about one particular religion would reduce the religious effort spent doing good deeds and therefore be most likely to reduce the probability of being rewarded in whatever version of heaven might exist.

As for following moral codes, the vast majority of atheists agree on a moral code that prohibits genocide and rape.  I wish the same could be said about clergy.

Does anybody want to try the suggested debate? For the last post to have any possibility of being right requires truth about the question. That will be the truth regardless of any of our beliefs or feelings. For there to be truth really requires a God. Not yet got onto discussing which god!

here's what the OED has to say about --

quote

moral, a. --

[ad. L. mōrālis, f. mōr-, mōs custom (pl. mōrēs manners, morals, character): see -al1.
   The Latin word was formed by Cicero (De Fato ii. i) as a rendering of Gr. ἠθικός ethic a. (mōrēs being the accepted Latin equivalent of ἤθη). It has passed into all the mod. Rom. and Teut. langs.: Fr., Sp., Pg. moral, It. morale; G. moralisch, Du. moraal, Sw., Da. moral.]

1. a. Of or pertaining to character or disposition, considered as good or bad, virtuous or vicious; of or pertaining to the distinction between right and wrong, or good and evil, in relation to the actions, volitions, or character of responsible beings; ethical.
   moral virtue: a rendering of L. virtus moralis, Gr. ἀρετὴ ἠθική (Aristotle), (an) excellence of character or disposition, as distinguished from intellectual virtue (ἀρετὴ διανοητική). As in English (and in other modern languages) virtue is rarely used exc. as synonymous with moral virtue, the use of the adj. with this n. has become infrequent.

¶b. moral virtue occasionally occurs in contradistinction to the ‘Christian virtues’ (Faith, Hope, Charity), or as restricted to such virtues as may be attained without the aid of religion.

c. Of knowledge, opinions, judgements, etc.: Relating to the nature and application of the distinction between right and wrong. (Cf. sense 2.)

d. moral sense: the power of apprehending the difference between right and wrong, esp. when viewed as an innate and unanalysable faculty of the human mind. Similarly moral faculty.

e. Of feelings: Arising from the contemplation of an action, character, etc., as good or bad.

f. Of concepts or terms: Involving ethical praise or blame.

2. a. Treating of or concerned with virtue and vice, or the rules of right conduct, as a subject of study. (Cf. 1 c.)
   moral philosophy: the department of philosophy which treats of the virtues and vices, the criteria of right and wrong, the rightness or wrongness of particular classes of actions, the methods to be adopted for the formation of virtuous character, and the like; ethical philosophy, ethics. Formerly often employed in a wider sense, including psychology and metaphysics. moral philosopher: one who studies or is versed in moral philosophy. moral science has in recent times been used in the same senses as ‘moral philosophy’. the moral sciences is sometimes used (e.g. at Cambridge) as a comprehensive name for a branch of academic study including psychology, ethics, political and economic science, and in fact all that is now commonly understood by the term ‘philosophy’. Also attrib. as in moral sciences tripos.

b. moral theology: (a) the practical part of ethics treated as a branch of theology; the part of theological learning which is concerned with the resolution of cases of conscience; casuistry, casuistic divinity.

c. moral psychology: psychology concerned with the psychological effect of rules of conduct, esp. the sense of virtue and vice, upon behaviour. Hence moral-psychological adj.

3. a. Of a person, esp. a writer: That enunciates moral precepts.

b. Of a literary work, a pictorial or dramatic representation, etc.: That deals with or treats of the ruling of conduct; that has the teaching of morality as its motive; that conveys a moral.

c. Of a literary work: Beneficial in moral effect.

d. moral tutor: a university tutor appointed to have a particular concern for the moral well-being of a student. Hence moral pupil.

4. moral law: the body of requirements in conformity to which right or virtuous action consists; a particular requirement of this kind. Opposed to ‘positive’ or ‘instituted’ laws, the obligation of which depends solely on the fact that they have been imposed by a rightful authority. Also moral code, norm, order, rule, system.
   In early use chiefly applied to that part of the Mosaic Law which enunciates moral principles, and therefore, unlike the ‘ceremonial’ and ‘judicial’ parts, remains valid under the Christian dispensation. So moral commandment, etc.

5. Of rights, obligations, responsibility, etc.: Founded on the moral law; valid according to the principles of morality. Opposed to legal.

6. a. Of actions: Subject to the moral law; having the property of being right or wrong. the moral world: the sphere or region of moral action.

b. Of an agent or his attributes: Capable of moral action; capable of volition for the rightness of which he is responsible.

7. a. Pertaining to, affecting, or operating on the character or conduct, as distinguished from the intellectual or physical nature of human beings. moral suasion.

c. Applied to the indirect effect of some action or event (e.g. a victory or defeat) in producing confidence or discouragement, sympathy or hostility, and the like. moral support: support or help the effect of which is psychological rather than physical. moral victory: applied to a defeat or an indecisive result which it is claimed will, on account of special circumstances, produce the moral effects of a victory.

d. moral courage: that kind of courage which enables a person to encounter odium, disapproval, or contempt, rather than depart from what he deems the right course: contradistinguished from physical courage. Similarly moral fibre; esp. in phr. lack of moral fibre, used euphem. for lack of courage. Cf. LMF s.v. L 7.

e. moral turpitude: conduct considered depraved; an instance of such conduct.

8. a. Of, pertaining to, or concerned with the morals (of a person or a community). Also (occas.), pertaining to the ‘morale’ of an army.

b. moral welfare.

9. a. moral sense or interpretation: originally, that mode of interpreting a passage of Holy Scripture which treats of the events recorded as typical of something in the life of the Christian soul. (Now chiefly Hist.) †Hence transf. applied to the ‘moral’ of a fable and the like.

b. Qualifying a descriptive noun: That is such in a metaphorical sense relative to moral character or condition.

10. a. Of persons, their habits, conduct, etc.: Morally good; conforming to the rules of morality.

¶b. with reference to ‘moral’ as opposed to ‘evangelical’ virtue (cf. 1 b).

c. Virtuous with regard to sexual conduct. moral restraint: see quot. 1803–6.

d. Of a tale, etc.: Conforming to morality; not ribald or vicious. (Cf. 3 b.)

11. Used to designate that kind of probable evidence that rests on a knowledge of the general tendencies of human nature, or of the character of particular individuals or classes of men; often in looser use, applied to all evidence which is merely probable and not demonstrative. moral certainty: a practical certainty resulting from moral evidence; a degree of probability so great as to admit of no reasonable doubt; also, something which is morally certain. moral universality: see quot. 1727–41.
   This use of the word is prob. ultimately connected with Aristotle's ἠθικὴ πίστις, which means the effect of the known personal character of an orator in producing conviction.
The currency of the terms certitudo, evidentia moralis appears to be due to the Cartesian logicians of the 17th c.

†12. In etymological sense: Pertaining to manners and customs. Obs. rare.


______________________________

Additions 1997

Add: [8.] c. Moral Majority: orig., in the U.S. [perh. influenced by the title of Westley & Egstien's book The Silent Majority (1969)], a political movement of evangelical Christians, founded in 1979 by the Revd. Jerry Falwell, that advocates an ultra-conservative political and social agenda, esp. on issues such as abortion and religious education (renamed as the Liberty Federation in 1986); now used transf. (freq. with lower-case initial) of any group claiming to hold majority views on moral issues.

end quote

morality does not require god/s; it requires human reason.  if one were to examine the religious writings re: morality, one would find many instances of behavior which is now considered obsolete, such as stoning or smiting.  blasphemy no longer requires the death of the blasphemer.  christian morality is as guilty of obsolete beliefs as are islam and judaism, the 3 "great" monotheistic religions.

i, as a nontheist, have a sense of what is right and what is wrong.  it is a secular sense, not a religious sensibility.  the Ten Amendments (i.e., the Bill of Rights) are, imo, more moral than the ten commandments.  the Bill of Rights informs us what the government cannot do to the individual, while the ten commandments instruct us how to behave as a group with a supreme leader ... or else.  that commandment about making no images -- is that really so important that it has to be second (i think)?  what about justice or kindness or equality or individual rights or the pursuit of happiness or property rights, etc?

even animals have a sense of morality -- the fight or flight morality.  they must make instantaneous judgments about what is the right behavior for the situation at hand; otherwise, they will be eaten, or they will be eating.  gods are not required in the animal kingdom, of which, need i remind you, we are members.  discerning what is right and what is wrong behavior or thought is not the province of self-absorbed, capricious gods; it is the province of homo sapiens, of thinking man (and woman, of course).  it requires mature thinking, not willing subjugation.

That is like saying for there to be water there must be rabbits, god has nothing to do with truth even if he(or she) exists.

Really? Dare one ask how we're to have this discussion?

btw, there is no reason for gods to have any gender.  they can create out of nothingness, or dirt, or breath, or myriads of things that do not involve sexual intercourse.  gods need neither penis nor vagina -- or perhaps they have both -- so why refer to gods as he or she, unless they are merely anthropomorphic creations of humans, who do happen to have both those pieces of reproductive equipment (one each, in most cases, but not all).

this last bit of "muscular morality" is, conveniently, an argument against same-sex marriage: the inability to procreate.  who says it's necessary to procreate?  why, gods, of course.  i think that argument is a little outdated -- there are too many of us as it is.  the moral majority are neither.  the bible/torah/qur'an, etc. are as immoral as you can get, if you follow them "religiously," so to speak.

try using the anatomically correct term when referring to a god -- it.  doesn't sound quite so serious or reasonable, does it?  but, logically, it is correct.

How was logic chosen to be THE method, then?

How was the christian god chosen to be THE god.

BruceCM Wrote -- How was logic chosen to be THE method, then?

i think it was when the first deer saw the first lion, and had to make a split-second, logical decision to flee.

logic is not chosen; illogic is chosen.  if the deer were to stand its ground and choose to fight, it would be acting irrationally.

logic comes naturally to mature homo sapiens, and even to their youngest offspring -- who touches a hot stove twice?

Then there's no discussion. As I must also be logical, since there's no choice. This is too daft.

Yes it is because you have no argument what so ever.

Well, you won't try to start from scratch with the debate. Put forward a proper argument in favour of morality without ANY god.

i thought i had.  but it takes two to tango.

Fine then evolution is all about survival and reproducing.
Imagine you are an early human you can use tools and are completely interdependent on members of your tribe.

If you go around kill every member of your tribe then you will either be killed by animals or others of your own species.

The same goes for other crimes if you keep stealing other people won't be very happy with you and will either kick you out of the group(if you're kicked out it would be much harder to hunt and you would starve to death) or kill you.

And if you raped a woman in the tribe her husband would probably kill you even if you get her pregnant you would only reproduce once and people who didn't behave like you would do so many more times.

So in short if you do not follow certain rules you would naturaly end up dead or cut off from all other members of your species.