I am a good person and I don't need a god for that

I thought you were going to post me to the thread which supplies the evidence for your particular view of "good?"

 

You are failing hard at reading the thread. I brought up 1 Samuel. YOU refused to address that and YOU tried changing the subject the Psalms. You'd know that if you had read the thread. Good luck actually reading the thread and being honest about the discussion thus far.

 

Feel free to read the thread. Empathy. Reason. If you think there is something else to being good or if you think either of these things are evil, feel free to say so. Otherwise, white flag accepted.

 

OK so you never had a post in this thread which proved your beliefs were based on science. As I suspected. Then just as I had said several posts prior, this is a religious belief for you. So that's fine, you don't need evidence for that, in fact, evidence would just make you angry.

 

When I first responded, you had not mentioned any verse from any book. Feel free to go back to the beginning (post 31)

 

Christians do not believe they are good. They believe they are sinners.

Search this question is addressed to Christian no you can't be good but it doesn't have anything to do with you being atheist it has to do with your nature.

Only Jesus is good.

But you can have morality mostly that which comes from Christianity is socially I'm reality is derived from that at least in the western world.

 

I'll ask again, is there a reason why theft is objectively wrong?

Or do some people like stealing and some people like not stealing?

Because if theft ain't objectively wrong, then it is just a matter of fashion.

Still, I think we can all agree that theft is wrong. My question to the atheist is why is theft objectively wrong?

 

Which of these facts were you unaware of before today? If you want evidence, then specify which of the points that you didn't know and I will supply. Unless evidence would just make you angry.

 

If you think that theists have an easier time answering this question, you are wrong. See the Euthyphro Dilemma, which theists have never really answered: is theft wrong only because God says it is wrong (making it arbitrary), or is it wrong for other reasons that God recognizes (making God unnecessary for morality)?

 

I thought you said you read the bible? Perhaps I am thinking of someone else. Sounds to me like you don't know the first words in Genesis, in the beginning. If you read Genesis 3 you will see that the very first sin desribed in the bible is theft of property.

Then Cain kills his little brother Able, another form of theft. Able's life belongs to him, Cain had no right to take it away. So the bible not only makes the claim that theft is objectively wrong, but that theft has always been wrong- it's in the first chapter.

And yeah, it's a tough question, "what is the secular reason that theft is objectively wrong" . It's a trick question, the reasons the secularists claim are entirely subjective.

God defines good and evil, not Man. See Genesis 3. The Creator told Adam and Eve not to take his stuff, and that not taking God's property which He told not to take was good. Then the serpent justifies to Eve that the idea that disobeying The Creator is "better" than obeying Him. Disaster ensues.

 

Your own justification for theft being wrong is ALSO subjective. You are just claiming it is based entirely on God's arbitrary whim, based on nothing, instead of that of man. You really haven't thought this through. If God defines good and evil (which the Bible says is wrong, by the way, please actually read Genesis, which you clearly haven't) and doesn't base it on anything else, then good and evil ARE ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE AND ARBITRARY. You are promoting Divine Command Theory, one of the dumbest, most arbitrary, and anti-Biblical theories on the table.

 

Anti-biblical?

I just explained how the fact that theft is objectively wrong is entirely biblical. "You will not steal", is not arbitrary in any way. If you dispute this, perhaps you might use the bible to explain how my beliefs are "Anti-Biblical". Until then all I hear is a tantrum.

 

Define goodness.
Withe the honor code I follow, I don't define good or bad, just what behaviors I will follow we ith no self excuses to deviate, unlike the provisional nature of most Christians I know who . At' as if t heir God won't either see or will forgive.Or like Catholics, go to confession, be wiped clean for a new round.

 

When it comes to you supplying evidence, I generally don't have to worry about that. But if you have scientific evidence that humans and animals are naturally "good" I'll take a look.

 

Where did your honor code come from?

 

I'll provide you with evidence of what I claimed, starting with animals exhibiting empathy and altruism, if you can be trusted to actually respond and engage. If you can commit to being honest in responding, I'll take a look. A simple yes or no should be sufficient. Something tells me you are already trying to think up excuses to run away, so feel free to use one of those if this is too much.

 

Since I didn't mention either empathy or altruism, why would you think I would consider that evidence for a claim of goodness?

So as I figured, you didn't actually have evidence that animals and humans are naturally good, you brought in your own theory with proof of that of your own theory? That's so you!

 

I apologize for assuming you had read the conversation. I won't make that mistake in the future.

I'm sorry you are unwilling to read the thread. That's so you! But we all know why you are scared for this "conversation" to continue and why you want to bury it as quickly as possible. Did you ever figure out your answer to my question about what you believed there was to morality beyond compassion and reason? Of course you didn't, and of course you never will. It should be easy as hell for anyone who isn't a troll to produce this. Not sure what the barrier is.

 

Anti-biblical?

I just explained how the fact that theft is objectively wrong is entirely biblical. "You will not steal", is not arbitrary in any way. If you dispute this, perhaps you might use the bible to explain how my beliefs are "Anti-Biblical". Until then all I hear is a tantrum.

 

1 Samuel 15. Please try reading it. If you support the Bible, you support the murder of children. Sorry, but those are the facts.

 

1 Samuel 15 says nothing about theft.

It's about judgment.

What version of the bible are you using? There are several, which is why I asked you to quote it. I would like us both to be on the same page. You seem to want to dispute the bible without any specific reference to the bible. That doesn't leave much of any room for a discussion.

 

1 Samuel 15 says god ordered the murder of children. That doesn't leave much of any room for a discussion. Why are you okay with the murder of children? And you aren't being truthful. I gave a specific reference the the Bible. I'll give it again: 1 Samuel 15. You've been given a specific reference. I'm not okay with murdering children. According to your Bible, your God is. Why are you okay with that?

 

Yep, eye for an eye. That's the way it was in the Old Testament. But the New Testament is different. Jesus did not change the law when He said the second greatest commandment is to, "Love your neighbor as you love yourselves", he added to it.

 

It isn't "eye for an eye." But thank you for admitting that you think that God was an immoral idiot at the time. I agree that's the way he was characterized. It wasn't eye for an eye. God, according to the Bible, ordered his followers to murder children for what their ancestors had done centuries before, making God an immoral idiot in the way he was described by the Bible. As far as the golden rule goes, that was in the OT was well, and just as in the NT, the Bible is inconsistent about it. Sometimes it describes God as an evil demon and sometimes it supports the golden rule. But thank you for admitting that you condemn what the Bible says about God.

 

Realism doesn't relate to mysticism. Who could have predicted folks would adopt the Me mentality so entirely it would preclude them from faith. Being good is relative. If you commit horrible atrocities in the name of your goodness, are you still good? If you read a book but don't have faith, did you learn anything? Hard questions for folks with zero ability to look beyond their own reverence for themselves.