Nonsense....man made God so that is a completely nonsensical remark. Moral codes were in place long before any of the Abrahmic gods were invented,

I look at them, aghast and say "My god, you're right! There's nothing stopping me from murdering you in your bed! I mean, you've got to sleep sometime..."
Then I stare at them. And slowly start to smile.
But not with my eyes.

That's right. I can kill and rape whenever I desire. In fact, I have killed and raped everyone I've ever wanted to.

I just walk away. I'm not the jackass whisperer.

I ask them, 'Please describe the god-given morals,' and then together we proceed to pick them apart. Every moral truth found in the Bible has an historical antecedent, and every moral shortcoming is conveniently ignored! At some point, it may be admitted that humans, and none other, are responsible for our moral codes.

My best friend is 7th Day Adventist and she knows I am an athiest...she isn't crazy about it so we don't discuss it. A couple weeks ago I asked her if I could help her build her profile on a dating site. She said I don't care what their characteristics are, as long as they aren't atheist. Man oh man, twas a punch to the gut. Rapist, felon, drug dealer, baby killer? Just no atheists please! Everyone else welcome...?

I tell them I have empathy, which my conscience obeys, and that it's worked fine so far.

The argument from morality is, interestingly, one argument that Jeffrey Jay Lowder at least believes atheists struggle the most with. However, that's because I believe (but could be wrong) he does believe in objective morality. I don't. I think saying something is objective is foolish, and, if I engage someone at all in this area (I prefer not to - usually the people asking aren't interested in actually having a discussion), I tend to explain different situations in which it's clear that the "moral" choice would be completely different depending on which actor in the story is making the choice. It often comes down to assigning the actors each a different religion, but not always. Hm. Maybe I'll try to develop the canonical argument story for this type of discussion and post it here, so people can use it if they want.

Every culture has gods and morals. If you do not believe that their Gods exist they still have morals. They do not believe your god exist. If it is true that the other Gods do not exist and their morals do exist without your god, then your god is not necessary for morals.

Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are a couple of the scientists that I give applications to their learning and teaching.

No one that mass murders and founds his religion on slicing baby penises is qualified to teach morals.

My first response is to ask how they define the word "moral". This is not a trivial question as theists and non-theists often define it very differently. Only after coming to an agreed definition can the concept be rationally discussed.

I believe that those with religious belief are more pure in their altruism and morals in general. The morality of religious people seems inherently disingenuous to me because I feel that their motives always include getting some type of "brownie points" from god or just straight up trying to avoid damnation and hell!

What even is morals really ? Just a bunch of societal rules you follow to be part of the tribe your in.....well atheists just pick up moral characteristics that help them fit into the society their part of and provide them with the advantages they need to pass on their genes to the next generation.

You can have God and no morals sooooo.

No God has given us a complete list of morals to follow. So if we were dependent on a God for a case not described in scripture we would not be able to determine the moral of a situation - but we can. For instance if I find an injured bird on a beach that can't fly away - I know it would be immoral to hurt it. There is to my knowledge no place where it is described that it is immoral to hurt it - but I for me it is.

Tell them that if the only reason they think that they have morals is because they are afraid of going to hell then they have no real morals, just fear motivation. Conversely, if the only reason that they think have morals is because they selfishly think it will get them into heaven, then God will see through their hypocrisy and send them to hell. In fact, if God can't see through their self-centered hypocrisy, then he is not God. Oops!

It is only atheists and agnostics who are good for goodness sake.

Look at jimmy swaggart. Hell, look at probably all the tv evangelists.All I have to do is look at most of the christians that have been in my life.

I'd quote Penn. He was once asked without religion what prevents him from raping and killing all he wanted. His reply was "I rape and kill all I want. The answer is 0".

You could quote Tom Araya (who is a catholic). He said "everybody knows the the difference between right and wrong. Unless there is something wrong in here or in here (points to heart, then points to head).

Think I heard Ray Comfort say something like "Oh yeah, without belief in I'd be out raping, murdering.." and I thought WOW - what a horrible person.

Buwahahahaaaaaaa!
Buncha self-righteous morons! Probably pedophiles, or wife-beaters, or both..it is Always the ones with big mouths telling everybody else how to live that get jailed......

Laughter. Then mention the rapist GOP.

i don't meet people like that in person. on facebook i tell them they're just "moral" if they even are in order to be rewarded with heaven or punished with hell. a person who has no hope of one or fear of the other can be good for its own sake and is far better than one who has those motivations.

g

Morals or how people with religion deal with their God . Ethics on the other hand are how people deal with each other.