Americas Turning to Atheism.

[Smartt33]

In other words, yes Jesus and the creator God of the Old Testament who morally rationalizes the genocidal slaughter of infants and children are one and the same, but you can't admit it.

What's your point? God ordered those killed that would not live by his laws, or went a different path that they were not to go. What's your point? That God can create and God can then take that life away if he so chooses? The New Testament is a new convenent with man where God provided a way to salvation. It's a telling of the history of that time period and what happened and why. You haven't as yet answered one of my questions, you don't know what you're talking about in the context in which is was written, yet you act as though you have some kind of a point to make. Why don't you just admit that you simply want to blindly bash people for their beliefs and quit acting like you have some kind of a noble cause?

This thread is about the MORALITY of Atheists versus the morality of believers in God. Atheists consider genocide and infanticide immoral and bible believers like you consider it moral for revenge.

Christians agree that genocide andinfanticide are immoral for mankind to do. However, the Creator is far more wise and knows far more than we do about His plan for mankind than we do, so we don't judge God as you do.

If you would like to switch to the morality of the path to salvation in the New Testament, I don't mind debating that. I just didn't want you to use it to avoid the fact that Atheists have a higher morality than the genocidal morality of bible believers.

From what I have seen, you are not qualified to debate on Bible topics, or on Christianity. Your so called higher morality is of no value to God. Having values ojnly meand we know better, living the values is something that humans, even Atheist humans don't have the capability to do. Unless you are saying that you are perfect? My high moral standards to not make me good when I violate God's standards moral or otherwise. My high morals standards also don't give me the right to Judge Creator God.

The New Testament morality says it is OK to punish an innocent for the deeds of the guilty. Salvation can only be obtained by agreeing to have an innocent Jesus tortured and crucified for YOUR evil deeds.

This statement alone tells me that you have not really done any Bible study. You may have read some verses, likely through the medium of an anti-Christian website. There was only one way for man to have an eternal relationship with God, and that was for sin to be eternally taken care of. God designed that way, and it was through Christ. His love would not allow Him to erase us from existence.

That act of God has nothing to do with how Christians, or any other human feels about the death of an innocent, or the punishment of an innocentfor the deeds of the guilty. That was God's idea and His plan, and He is the Creator wo we cannot secopnd guess Him and judge Him as you do.

An Atheist would find it immoral that any innocent should be punished in place of the guilty and would say the guilty should be punished for their own deeds and the innocent should not be punished at all.

Who is innocent? The Bible says "all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." It says that "the wages of sin is death." Jesus came to heal the sick, and not to tickle the ears of the "innocent." For He sees no one who is innocent. With that said, He does qualify that offering his eternal love to those who have not entered into willful sin.

So therefore the Atheist has a higher moral standard than the bible believer no matter which testament you use.

And the atheists standards will be there in the judgment, and you will have to home that they stand up against what Jesus died for. I doubt that will happen.

 

[edthecynic]

The New Testament morality says it is OK to punish an innocent for the deeds of the guilty. Salvation can only be obtained by agreeing to have an innocent Jesus tortured and crucified for YOUR evil deeds.

An Atheist would find it immoral that any innocent should be punished in place of the guilty and would say the guilty should be punished for their own deeds and the innocent should not be punished at all.

From what I have seen, you are not qualified to debate on Bible topics, or on Christianity...

Who is innocent? The Bible says "all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." It says that "the wages of sin is death." Jesus came to heal the sick, and not to tickle the ears of the "innocent." For He sees no one who is innocent. With that said, He does qualify that offering his eternal love to those who have not entered into willful sin.

The fact that you didn't know that Jesus was innocent of all sin including the sin of Adam "tells me that you have not really done any Bible study and you are not qualified to debate on Bible topics, or on Christianity."

 

[MajikMyst]

But what makes a "good" person? Do you agree with the Ten Commandments?

See.. Here we go.. The hypocrisy of christians..

Ok.. The 10 commandments??

Let's assume that most of this nation is christian, which means that mostly christians are getting a divorce over cheating on their spouses.. What commandment does that violate?

Got it..

Ok.. Next issue..

Exodus 22:16-17 Basically that one says that a raped virgin must marry her rapist and can never divorce him..

Deuteronomy 25:5-6 That one there says you should marry your dead brothers wife..

Ok.. So?? ARe you going to pick and choose which tenets to believe or not believe in?? Cause all of these are on the old testament??

So?? Back to the original question?? Do I believe in the 10 commandments?? No.. But then I also don't believe that I need the 10 commandments to tell me what is right from wrong.. Which appearantly you and other christians do..

We think for ourselves, you let a bunch of bronze age morons living in clay huts think for you.. And you wonder why there is a saying, 'God loves stupid people, he sure made a lot of them and they are all christian..'

10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.

7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!

6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."


3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.


Have a nice day!!

 

[froggy]

But what makes a "good" person? Do you agree with the Ten Commandments?

See.. Here we go.. The hypocrisy of christians..

Ok.. The 10 commandments??

Let's assume that most of this nation is christian, which means that mostly christians are getting a divorce over cheating on their spouses.. What commandment does that violate?

Got it..

Ok.. Next issue..

Exodus 22:16-17 Basically that one says that a raped virgin must marry her rapist and can never divorce him..

Deuteronomy 25:5-6 That one there says you should marry your dead brothers wife..

Ok.. So?? ARe you going to pick and choose which tenets to believe or not believe in?? Cause all of these are on the old testament??

So?? Back to the original question?? Do I believe in the 10 commandments?? No.. But then I also don't believe that I need the 10 commandments to tell me what is right from wrong.. Which appearantly you and other christians do..

We think for ourselves, you let a bunch of bronze age morons living in clay huts think for you.. And you wonder why there is a saying, 'God loves stupid people, he sure made a lot of them and they are all christian..'

10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.

7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!

6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."


3

- While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

Science has not proven there is no God.

2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.


Have a nice day!!

Exodus 22:16-17 doesn't say anything about rape.another thing that atheist try to do, change the truth of religion. We are no longer ruled by the old testament, the Old Testament was done away at the cross by Christ's death, which ushered in the New Testament. Therefore, we are no longer under obligation. Do ou believe it right to kill, commit adultry, steal, lie?

- While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

Science has not proven there is no God.

 

[JW Frogen]

It is no wonder Americans are turning to atheism, Wall Street leveraged God in a derivative financial package mortgaged to Manic-Mammon Inc.

 

[MajikMyst]

Science has not proven there is no God.

It isn't science's job to prove the negative moron!! It is your job and obligation to prove the positive..

Passage Exodus 22:16-17:

16 And if a man entice a virgin that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely pay a dowry for her to be his wife.

17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.


Hmmmm.. It sure looks like rape to me in definition.. Would you care for the passage in a different version?? In either case.. It is describing rape.. Nice try though..

 

[Smartt33]

The New Testament morality says it is OK to punish an innocent for the deeds of the guilty. Salvation can only be obtained by agreeing to have an innocent Jesus tortured and crucified for YOUR evil deeds.

An Atheist would find it immoral that any innocent should be punished in place of the guilty and would say the guilty should be punished for their own deeds and the innocent should not be punished at all.

From what I have seen, you are not qualified to debate on Bible topics, or on Christianity...

Who is innocent? The Bible says "all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." It says that "the wages of sin is death." Jesus came to heal the sick, and not to tickle the ears of the "innocent." For He sees no one who is innocent. With that said, He does qualify that offering his eternal love to those who have not entered into willful sin.

The fact that you didn't know that Jesus was innocent of all sin including the sin of Adam "tells me that you have not really done any Bible study and you are not qualified to debate on Bible topics, or on Christianity."

Are you playing stupid here, or are you really stupid? If you even had any idea how to discuss this subject, you would know that a Chrristian knows Jesus is the only one who is innocent. Follow the conversation for a while and learn something. Don't speak or you will reveal your ignorance.

 

[Smartt33]

Science has not proven there is no God.

It isn't science's job to prove the negative moron!! It is your job and obligation to prove the positive..

Passage Exodus 22:16-17:

16 And if a man entice a virgin that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely pay a dowry for her to be his wife.

17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.


Hmmmm.. It sure looks like rape to me in definition.. Would you care for the passage in a different version?? In either case.. It is describing rape.. Nice try though..

No, God will prove Himself to each individual. You just have to listen and pay attention. Christians, nor anyone else has an obligation to propve God.

Romans chapter 1 explains how God has revealed Himself to everyone, and no one has an excuse for not knowing.

Who needs science? Science only discovers what God created.

 

[Newby]

In other words, yes Jesus and the creator God of the Old Testament who morally rationalizes the genocidal slaughter of infants and children are one and the same, but you can't admit it.

What's your point? God ordered those killed that would not live by his laws, or went a different path that they were not to go. What's your point? That God can create and God can then take that life away if he so chooses? The New Testament is a new convenent with man where God provided a way to salvation. It's a telling of the history of that time period and what happened and why. You haven't as yet answered one of my questions, you don't know what you're talking about in the context in which is was written, yet you act as though you have some kind of a point to make. Why don't you just admit that you simply want to blindly bash people for their beliefs and quit acting like you have some kind of a noble cause?

This thread is about the MORALITY of Atheists versus the morality of believers in God. Atheists consider genocide and infanticide immoral and bible believers like you consider it moral for revenge.

If you would like to switch to the morality of the path to salvation in the New Testament, I don't mind debating that. I just didn't want you to use it to avoid the fact that Atheists have a higher morality than the genocidal morality of bible believers.

The New Testament morality says it is OK to punish an innocent for the deeds of the guilty. Salvation can only be obtained by agreeing to have an innocent Jesus tortured and crucified for YOUR evil deeds.

An Atheist would find it immoral that any innocent should be punished in place of the guilty and would say the guilty should be punished for their own deeds and the innocent should not be punished at all.

So therefore the Atheist has a higher moral standard than the bible believer no matter which testament you use.

The morality of atheists? Where do your objective morals come from? There is no objective morality for atheists. If you have a subjective opinion that something is 'right' according to your morals, another atheist can have his or her own subjective opinion that it is 'wrong'. So, which one of you is 'right'? Something cannot be moral outside of your individual subjective view, or outside of any individual's subjective moral view with atheism. There is no morality or anything that is an absolute outside of the individual or society with the atheist world view. How do you adjucate between your ethics and another atheist's ethics? Is it simply how many other individuals agree with either of you using their own subjective ethics?

And how do you judge your ethics to be superior to a Christian's ethics? Your ethics are within yourself and only yourself, they're not absolute, they have no objectivity. And secondly, you put words in my mouth, which isn't debating in an honest or ethical fashion. Where have I ever said that I believed that genocide was moral, or where has any Christian? Do you have to make false claims and assign false beliefs to people that you don't agree with in order to 'win' your argument? Why don't you argue from your beliefs? You don't believe in God, therefore God could have never told anyone to commit 'genocide' according to your lack of beliefs.

Salvation was given by Jesus, I agreed to nothing since it was done thousands of years before my life here, so your point there doesn't really make any logical sense.

How can you say an atheist would find it immoral to do anything? Do you speak for all atheists? Again, there are no objective ethics in atheism, only subjective. In athesim, your ethics could not be any better or worse than another atheists ethics. There is no objective absolute code of ethics outside of the individual or outside of what society would define as 'moral' in an atheist world. Stalin was an atheist and was responsible for the deaths of millions, but that didn't go against any atheist moral absolute. You can say that what Stalin did was wrong, but in an atheist world view, you are only giving your opinion. You can provide reasons why you believe that your ethics are superior to Stalin’s. And while this may gain support from others in your atheist society, it can never establish that your ethics are intrinsically superior to Stalin’s.

You obviously don't have a grasp on how objective morality versus subjective morality works. A true atheist could never claim moral superiority over anyone.

 

[Newby]

Please explain the atheist's moral foundation to me. Believe it or not, I respect other's opinions.

Excuse my co-non-religious

Atheism does not have any "moral doctrines" that its member adhere to.

In my Book of atheism, there is only one sentence--there is no god.

After that, I pretty much construct my own code of ethics from others experience and reasoning. I am pretty sure that my concepts of "what is ethical?" is not the same as other atheists--

There you are, an honest atheist. There is no objective morality in atheism.

 

[edthecynic]

The New Testament morality says it is OK to punish an innocent for the deeds of the guilty. Salvation can only be obtained by agreeing to have an innocent Jesus tortured and crucified for YOUR evil deeds.

An Atheist would find it immoral that any innocent should be punished in place of the guilty and would say the guilty should be punished for their own deeds and the innocent should not be punished at all.

From what I have seen, you are not qualified to debate on Bible topics, or on Christianity...

Who is innocent? The Bible says "all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." It says that "the wages of sin is death." Jesus came to heal the sick, and not to tickle the ears of the "innocent." For He sees no one who is innocent. With that said, He does qualify that offering his eternal love to those who have not entered into willful sin.

The fact that you didn't know that Jesus was innocent of all sin including the sin of Adam "tells me that you have not really done any Bible study and you are not qualified to debate on Bible topics, or on Christianity."

Are you playing stupid here, or are you really stupid? If you even had any idea how to discuss this subject, you would know that a Chrristian knows Jesus is the only one who is innocent. Follow the conversation for a while and learn something. Don't speak or you will reveal your ignorance.

A Christian would know it, but YOU didn't until I told you!

And if YOU were following the conversation, I said Jesus was the INNOCENT who was brutally punished in place of the guilty, which is moral bankruptcy even when the INNOCENT victim is WILLING to be punished in place of the guilty.

 

[Newby]

The New Testament morality says it is OK to punish an innocent for the deeds of the guilty. Salvation can only be obtained by agreeing to have an innocent Jesus tortured and crucified for YOUR evil deeds.

An Atheist would find it immoral that any innocent should be punished in place of the guilty and would say the guilty should be punished for their own deeds and the innocent should not be punished at all.

The fact that you didn't know that Jesus was innocent of all sin including the sin of Adam "tells me that you have not really done any Bible study and you are not qualified to debate on Bible topics, or on Christianity."

Are you playing stupid here, or are you really stupid? If you even had any idea how to discuss this subject, you would know that a Chrristian knows Jesus is the only one who is innocent. Follow the conversation for a while and learn something. Don't speak or you will reveal your ignorance.

A Christian would know it, but YOU didn't until I told you!

And if YOU were following the conversation, I said Jesus was the INNOCENT who was brutally punished in place of the guilty, which is moral bankruptcy even when the INNOCENT victim is WILLING to be punished in place of the guilty.

You're simply stating your subjective opinion, Ed. Your opinion or morality isn't any better than anyone else's in your chosen world view, that's how atheism works.

 

[rightwinger]

Exodus 22:16-17 doesn't say anything about rape.another thing that atheist try to do, change the truth of religion. We are no longer ruled by the old testament, the Old Testament was done away at the cross by Christ's death, which ushered in the New Testament. Therefore, we are no longer under obligation. Do ou believe it right to kill, commit adultry, steal, lie?

Froggy

So you are saying that Christians are no longer bound by the Ten Commandments?

 

[edthecynic]

Psalms 137: 9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

Many of the psalms rehearse episodes of Israel’s history, especially the story of Israel’s exodus from Egypt and its arrival in the promised land. Psalm 137 is a beautiful lament of the early days of Israel’s captivity in Babylon. The poem opens with the image of the Israelites weeping by the banks of the Babylonian rivers, longing for Jerusalem, or Zion. When their captors ask the Israelites to sing for them, the Israelites refuse, hanging their harps on the branches of the willow trees. The poet asks, “How could we sing the Lord’s / song / in a foreign land?” (137:4). The poem ends with a call for vengeance on the Babylonians. It acts as an earnest reminder both to the exiled Israelites and to later biblical readers of the importance of the promised land for the celebration of the Jewish faith.

So, killing babies is good and moral when done in revenge.
Praise God.

Ro 12:19* Avenge not yourselves, beloved, but give place unto the wrath of God: for it is written, Vengeance belongeth unto me; I will recompense, saith the Lord.

What's your point? God ordered those killed that would not live by his laws, or went a different path that they were not to go. What's your point? That God can create and God can then take that life away if he so chooses?

Atheists consider genocide and infanticide immoral and bible believers like you consider it moral for revenge.

Where have I ever said that I believed that genocide was moral, or where has any Christian? Do you have to make false claims and assign false beliefs to people that you don't agree with in order to 'win' your argument?

Clearly you rationalize any morally bankrupt act is justified in the name of your God. According to you, moral justification for genocide can be as simple as an "earnest" reminder of how important the land that was taken from the native inhabitants of that land is to the conquerors.

 

[Newby]

Many of the psalms rehearse episodes of Israel’s history, especially the story of Israel’s exodus from Egypt and its arrival in the promised land. Psalm 137 is a beautiful lament of the early days of Israel’s captivity in Babylon. The poem opens with the image of the Israelites weeping by the banks of the Babylonian rivers, longing for Jerusalem, or Zion. When their captors ask the Israelites to sing for them, the Israelites refuse, hanging their harps on the branches of the willow trees. The poet asks, “How could we sing the Lord’s / song / in a foreign land?” (137:4). The poem ends with a call for vengeance on the Babylonians. It acts as an earnest reminder both to the exiled Israelites and to later biblical readers of the importance of the promised land for the celebration of the Jewish faith.

So, killing babies is good and moral when done in revenge.
Praise God.

Ro 12:19* Avenge not yourselves, beloved, but give place unto the wrath of God: for it is written, Vengeance belongeth unto me; I will recompense, saith the Lord.

Atheists consider genocide and infanticide immoral and bible believers like you consider it moral for revenge.

Where have I ever said that I believed that genocide was moral, or where has any Christian? Do you have to make false claims and assign false beliefs to people that you don't agree with in order to 'win' your argument?

Clearly you rationalize any morally bankrupt act is justified in the name of your God. According to you, moral justification for genocide can be as simple as an "earnest" reminder of how important the land that was taken from the native inhabitants of that land is to the conquerors.

You're not even worth debating with unfortunately. Clearly I rationalize it? By explaining what a Bible verse was talking about, I 'rationalized' it? You wouldn't know a rational thought if it slapped you across the face. The last part of your comments clearly indicates that you know nothing about what the history the Bible verse that YOU originally posted is even talking about. One would think that you would educate yourself since you seem determined to speak on the topic so that you wouldn't look foolish.

 

[edthecynic]

The New Testament morality says it is OK to punish an innocent for the deeds of the guilty. Salvation can only be obtained by agreeing to have an innocent Jesus tortured and crucified for YOUR evil deeds.

An Atheist would find it immoral that any innocent should be punished in place of the guilty and would say the guilty should be punished for their own deeds and the innocent should not be punished at all.

Are you playing stupid here, or are you really stupid? If you even had any idea how to discuss this subject, you would know that a Chrristian knows Jesus is the only one who is innocent. Follow the conversation for a while and learn something. Don't speak or you will reveal your ignorance.

A Christian would know it, but YOU didn't until I told you!

And if YOU were following the conversation, I said Jesus was the INNOCENT who was brutally punished in place of the guilty, which is moral bankruptcy even when the INNOCENT victim is WILLING to be punished in place of the guilty.

You're simply stating your subjective opinion, Ed. Your opinion or morality isn't any better than anyone else's in your chosen world view, that's how atheism works.

That's just your subjective opinion. No moral person could ever accept genocide or punishing an innocent.

 

[Newby]

A Christian would know it, but YOU didn't until I told you!

And if YOU were following the conversation, I said Jesus was the INNOCENT who was brutally punished in place of the guilty, which is moral bankruptcy even when the INNOCENT victim is WILLING to be punished in place of the guilty.

You're simply stating your subjective opinion, Ed. Your opinion or morality isn't any better than anyone else's in your chosen world view, that's how atheism works.

That's just your subjective opinion. No moral person could ever accept genocide or punishing an innocent.

You're starting to get repetitive. I wonder why that is? I see you decided to not comment on my other post, no surprises there.

What makes a 'moral' person Ed? How is it defined? Who defines it?

 

[edthecynic]

So, killing babies is good and moral when done in revenge.
Praise God.

Ro 12:19* Avenge not yourselves, beloved, but give place unto the wrath of God: for it is written, Vengeance belongeth unto me; I will recompense, saith the Lord.

Where have I ever said that I believed that genocide was moral, or where has any Christian? Do you have to make false claims and assign false beliefs to people that you don't agree with in order to 'win' your argument?

Clearly you rationalize any morally bankrupt act is justified in the name of your God. According to you, moral justification for genocide can be as simple as an "earnest" reminder of how important the land that was taken from the native inhabitants of that land is to the conquerors.

You're not even worth debating with unfortunately. Clearly I rationalize it? By explaining what a Bible verse was talking about, I 'rationalized' it? You wouldn't know a rational thought if it slapped you across the face. The last part of your comments clearly indicates that you know nothing about what the history the Bible verse that YOU originally posted is even talking about. One would think that you would educate yourself since you seem determined to speak on the topic so that you wouldn't look foolish.

You were "explaining" nothing. You were morally rationalizing the biblical justification for the genocidal slaughter of infants recorded in the Old Testament.

 

[edthecynic]

You're simply stating your subjective opinion, Ed. Your opinion or morality isn't any better than anyone else's in your chosen world view, that's how atheism works.

That's just your subjective opinion. No moral person could ever accept genocide or punishing an innocent.

You're starting to get repetitive. I wonder why that is? I see you decided to not comment on my other post, no surprises there.

What makes a 'moral' person Ed? How is it defined? Who defines it?

Certainly not God or the bible.
Goodness and decency summed up by the Golden Rule defines true morality.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

You're simply stating your subjective opinion, Ed. Your opinion or morality isn't any better than anyone else's in your chosen world view, that's how atheism works.

That's just your subjective opinion. No moral person could ever accept genocide or punishing an innocent.

You're starting to get repetitive. I wonder why that is? I see you decided to not comment on my other post, no surprises there.

What makes a 'moral' person Ed? How is it defined? Who defines it?

I find it best not to argue with insolent children newby. They will say anything to be right and even lie to you straight faced.