Verified answer

ATHEISM FAILS.

YOU DON'T NEED TO ARGUE AGAINST ATHEISM, BECAUSE ATHEISM IS AN INSTANT FAIL.

Ugh, vacuous semantics from a theist. Again.

It's only "moral law" because you *call* it "moral law". Why not call it, say "moral constants" or "moral invariants", or something like that? Well, obviously because it doesn't suit your case, and it exposes the fact that you're trying to import deep universal truths through mere word choice, but other than that, there isn't really a reason not to.

"If you assume there’s such a thing as an absolute moral law, you must posit an absolute moral law giver in order for the law to be objective, but that would be God"

Why? Even if your argument had any content, why is it your law enforcer, not some other enforcer? I swear, you theists don't understand logic. You define your god multiple ways, but never actually prove the ways are equivalent.

OK, you can define your god to be the god of the bible. How do you know he's true?

Oh OK, now you want to define your god to be the (supposedly necessary) enforcer of morality. How do you know anything in the Bible is true?

"Atheist says there is 'no good and evil' then they are automatically invoking a moral law which reinforces a moral law giver(God)."

Tell me again how saying the words "good" and "evil", even in a sentence simply saying they do not exist, can only mean I believe they exist, and therefore your god (out of all others) exists. I suppose you've never, ever, once in your life talked about Zeus? Or unicorns? Never discussed Harry Potter?

I talk about absolute morality. I have no idea what it means, but I talk about it. I debate people on it. I work it out from the person's own conceptions. I ask them what it means, but they can't really answer my questions on it. Do I believe it exists? Absolutely not!

I really hate theists who use "logic" like this. Here let me explain how I view the world. There is absolutely no such thing as objectively good and objectively evil. Nothing, whatsoever can be always classified as good or always classified as evil. However, we are a social species which means that our strength comes from a community. We are not fast, and we are not strong. So how do we survive and thrive? We form bodies of people who share a common interest and use our specific talents to further our race along. So when society decides to say that murder is illegal, they have a logical reason for it. If you murder then you are destroying a part of society and therefore it is "evil" in our eyes as a society. Or society says that rape is wrong, okay I can understand that. When you rape somebody you rip away their sense of security and their dignity. It is now hard for them to function in everyday life simply because they have been mentally scarred. This pokes a hole in society. However, what about the Mayans, they murdered people in sacrifice to their gods. Is that evil, today we would say so however it is what they believed. It is what they thought they had to do so it was not objectively evil. Not to mention the sacrifices usually wanted to be sacrificed. In the past when soldiers would take a town they would pillage the town and rape the women. Today we would say that is evil, yet that was how warfare worked back then. It was not objectively evil because it was a different time and a different culture. Morality is completely subjective, there is no divine lawmaker, there is no god holding a rod over your head, and there is no such thing as objectively good or objectively evil.

"If you assume there’s such a thing as good, you assume there’s such a thing as an absolute and unchanging moral law "

ummm no! do I have to read any further???

edit: I just read the next sentence. You take what I quoted, (aka, your strawman) and make it a fact so that you can then bolster come claim later on (I'm guessing, I haven't read past, "If you assume there’s such a thing as an absolute moral law, you must ..." ) pathetic.

this is what happens when exploration of the world starts with a conclusion and then you have to massage the facts to get that expected answer.

'Good and evil' obviously come from our evolution as a social species, in order to cooperate together efficiently, we can't be murdering, stealing from, raping, or generally harming each other, right? Pretty obvious, otherwise we'd be at each others throats all the time and we would get nothing done, gather no food for the winter and then we'd go extinct.

It's only logical that we forbid things like murder, theft, etc. because if we didn't, this nice comfy society thing we have going on, that would collapse. We also acknowledge that we don't want to be murdered or stolen from, so we make a social agreement with others and formulate efficient laws and law enforcement methods.

If your particular god is the only basis of morality, explain to me how societies that worshiped other gods, and often multiple gods, kept from killing each other off? How, exactly, did they formulate moral laws very similar to your own?

An entire moral algorithm emerges simply from acknowledging that there is a discernible difference between joy and suffering, and that your actions have the power of consequence to propagate either.

The role of gods in the equation is just a bonus.

If morality came from a supreme being, wouldn't all religions have the same morality? Wouldn't alcohol be okay or not okay in all of them, instead of okay for some and not others? Wouldn't a supreme being make sure that morality was consistent.

All evidence points to morality being a man-made structure. One designed to enable us to live in communities without mob rule ensuing.

simply by fact there must be some thing better available interior the universe. i dont understand what that's yet to have faith that this all got here approximately via accident is purely illogical. seem at how complicated our bodies are, or maybe purely the bodies of the smallest of organisms. for all of that to purely ensue sometime and all artwork in cohesion to help existence is purely one in all those good way out odds that it rounds to impossible. i dont understand how and that i dont understand who, yet somebody or some thing had a element in making existence what that's and according to possibility we can locate out while we die yet no one is conscious for constructive. think of what the percentages could be in case you have been given a substantial field of all the countless atoms required to make a great laptop which remains much less complicated than a human. now what in case you have been to shake the field of atoms up. what are the percentages that each atom could line up completely to make a very functioning great laptop? its an prolonged shot and that i tend to bypass with the different part of the percentages which element immediately in the direction of an clever dressmaker.

From: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AoNct...

I'll just recycle the same answer...

“If god existed he wouldn't let idiots like you witness for him.

He'd shut you up tout suite because you do far more damage than good.

So the fact that you haven't been struck by lightning is actually pretty solid evidence that god does not exist.”

~

That's just wrong.

Good and evil are value judgements made by people, nothing to do with supernatural beings, they are entirely subjective by their very nature.

Morality doesn't come from any supreme being. Morality comes from parenting and experience. If religion is involved, you're simply using it to back up what you're teaching your child. An Atheist will teach his child that it's wrong to steal and not to kill. You don't need a bible to tell you that. That's basic common sense.