Why are some people so adamant that God does exist?

[ASimon]

So in a way you believe in natural law, but that rather than being written on the heart by God it developed through time by evolution?

I don’t know whether it’s proper to characterize what I believe as the same as believing in natural law - I’ll let you make that call for me. But yes, I do think it’s developed through time by evolution.

One clarification from something I noticed you wrote. I don’t think this is purely genetic. Like many behaviors, and other human characteristics, it’s a combination of biological predisposition and evironmental factors. A child born of two tall parents might be predisposed to being tall themselves (though it wouldn’t be a genetic certainty). Assuming they were, that still doesn’t mean they’re guaranteed to be tall. A poor upbringing in terms of bad nutrition, or lack of exercise, or illness (environmental factors), can override this. I suspect the same is true of the “moral gene” (for lack of a better phrase). For everyone who starts out life with the proper neurological equipment, they may be hardwired to become to normal moral adults. That doesn’t mean if they’re subjected to abuse and terror in their formative, that they won’t become psychopathic adults. That’s where environment can overrule genetics.

 

[karebear92]

I don’t know whether it’s proper to characterize what I believe as the same as believing in natural law - I’ll let you make that call for me. But yes, I do think it’s developed through time by evolution.

One clarification from something I noticed you wrote. I don’t think this is purely genetic. Like many behaviors, and other human characteristics, it’s a combination of biological predisposition and evironmental factors. A child born of two tall parents might be predisposed to being tall themselves (though it wouldn’t be a genetic certainty). Assuming they were, that still doesn’t mean they’re guaranteed to be tall. A poor upbringing in terms of bad nutrition, or lack of exercise, or illness (environmental factors), can override this. I suspect the same is true of the “moral gene” (for lack of a better phrase). For everyone who starts out life with the proper neurological equipment, they may be hardwired to become to normal moral adults. That doesn’t mean if they’re subjected to abuse and terror in their formative, that they won’t become psychopathic adults. That’s where environment can overrule genetics.

Fair enough.

 

[adoglover1956]

I haven’t had time to read the entire thread and am new here…so please excuse me if I go awry.

First of all…I think there have been many occasions where proof of God has been made. I don’t want to sound silly to the unbeliever…but some examples.

1. There have been documented “miracles” or phenomena that have occurred. One of them is the miracle of the sun at Fatima. There have been other miracles at Marian apparitions through the ages.
2. I believe there are documented Eucharistic miracles that have occurred through the ages.
3. There have been totally unexplained sudden cures of incurable diseases.

Again…I hope I’m not being too simple because there are many more instances of proof of the Christian God.

 

[karebear92]

I haven’t had time to read the entire thread and am new here…so please excuse me if I go awry.

First of all…I think there have been many occasions where proof of God has been made. I don’t want to sound silly to the unbeliever…but some examples.

1. There have been documented “miracles” or phenomena that have occurred. One of them is the miracle of the sun at Fatima. There have been other miracles at Marian apparitions through the ages.
2. I believe there are documented Eucharistic miracles that have occurred through the ages.
3. There have been totally unexplained sudden cures of incurable diseases.

Again…I hope I’m not being too simple because there are many more instances of proof of the Christian God.

I agree, and although we haven’t brought them up in this thread, we have before. One thing that you will probably notice is people tend to favor certain threads, so most of us in this thread have discussed similar topics many times, and that has been brought up before.

Anyway, I agree with you. But often they refute those with scientific explanations or that it is chance.

Welcome to the forums!

 

[uni_embrace]

ASimon
**
No idea. Maybe it happened today - I couldn’t tell you. Though it hardly matters. There’s nothing about atheism which demands behavior that morally normal people would find attrocious.**

There’s nothing about atheism that forbids atrocious acts, though Christ forbids them.

There’s nothing about atheism that forbids the atheist to think he can commit an atrocious act, and, if he is clever enough, never have to pay for it.

Read the Marquis de Sade.

Would definitely have to agree with the last sentence. Many atheists or those neo-pagans shudder at the very thought of morality or delayed gratification. It’s all about now, now, now and me,me and more me. Just look at the plethora of "self help"books.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

ASimon

**Christ does forbid atrocious acts, sometimes. Although the thing about beating your slaves for defying their owners’ will, that kinda rubbed me the wrong way. **

Book, chapter, and verse?

 

[ASimon]

ASimon

**Christ does forbid atrocious acts, sometimes. Although the thing about beating your slaves for defying their owners’ will, that kinda rubbed me the wrong way. **

Book, chapter, and verse?

Luke 12:45-48

But suppose the servant says to himself, ‘My master is taking a long time in coming,’ and he then begins to beat the other servants, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk. The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers.

The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

Would’ve been a nice time for the Lord to point out that owning people and treating them like farm equipment wasn’t a step forward in moral progress, but evidently, he was more concerned with preparing people for the end of the world.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

ASimon

The passage you cite does not refer to slaves, but to servants. So your initial language in reference to “slaves” was to lie about your source. You need to stop that because there are too many Catholics who will not hesitate to expose your lies.

**Would’ve been a nice time for the Lord to point out that owning people and treating them like farm equipment wasn’t a step forward in moral progress, but evidently, he was more concerned with preparing people for the end of the world. **

Jesus took many opportunities to treat people as better than farm equipment, and you would know that if you had ever bothered to read the Gospels.

Shame on you for your open insult to Jesus Christ who laid down his life for you.

In the parable you cite, Christ tells as a metaphor what will happen to you and me if we refuse the grace he has given to rise up and be better than we would be if we let the devil, who is a liar, have his way. If we let the liar have his way, Christ will turn us over to the devil who will beat us unmercifully.

 

[ASimon]

ASimon

The passage you cite does not refer to slaves, but to servants. So your initial language in reference to “slaves” was to lie about your source. You need to stop that because there are too many Catholics who will not hesitate to expose your lies.

Nonsense. Slaves were referred to as servents in both the OT and the NT. Slavery was quite common in this era. Pretending that what Jesus was really talking about was the butler, the maid, and the au pair is just bald obfuscation. Though, even if I wanted to concede the point, I don’t exactly see why it’s considered a great moral improvement to beat your employees rather than your slaves.

Jesus took many opportunities to treat people as better than farm equipment, and you would know that if you had ever bothered to read the Gospels.

I don’t deny that Jesus was a great moral improvement over the OT. Not that this is saying much, considering how barbaric great swaths of the OT actually are.

Shame on you for your open insult to Jesus Christ who laid down his life for you.

I didn’t ask him for this, and had I been present at Calvary, I would’ve felt responsible for doing whatever I could to prevent his murder.

In the parable you cite, Christ tells as a metaphor what will happen to you and me if we refuse the grace he has given to rise up and be better than we would be if we let the devil, who is a liar, have his way. If we let the liar have his way, Christ will turn us over to the devil who will beat us unmercifully.

Also incorrect - the ‘master’ in this parable is clearly God. The beatings to the slaves who aren’t ready for their master’s return are considered justified. The whole point of Luke 12 is to lecture people not to waste time with the material concerns of this life, because the world would be coming to an end soon. My point, again, is that for a guy with the moral scruples of Christ, he sure picked an odd metaphor to relay his message. There wasn’t any other way for him to make his point to the slave-owning classes of the greater Jerusalem area?

 

[Jcnava15]

Nonsense. Slaves were referred to as servents in both the OT and the NT. Slavery was quite common in this era. Pretending that what Jesus was really talking about was the butler, the maid, and the au pair is just bald obfuscation. Though, even if I wanted to concede the point, I don’t exactly see why it’s considered a great moral improvement to beat your employees rather than your slaves.

I don’t deny that Jesus was a great moral improvement over the OT. Not that this is saying much, considering how barbaric great swaths of the OT actually are.

I didn’t ask him for this, and had I been present at Calvary, I would’ve felt responsible for doing whatever I could to prevent his murder.

Also incorrect - the ‘master’ in this parable is clearly God. The beatings to the slaves who aren’t ready for their master’s return are considered justified. The whole point of Luke 12 is to lecture people not to waste time with the material concerns of this life, because the world would be coming to an end soon. My point, again, is that for a guy with the moral scruples of Christ, he sure picked an odd metaphor to relay his message. There wasn’t any other way for him to make his point to the slave-owning classes of the greater Jerusalem area?

You keep talking about moral improvement, can you define it?

You are wrong about all servants being slaves. Some servants were slaves, but not all of them. For example, the apostles were servants of Christ, and they constantly referred to him as master in this context. They were allowed to leave him, as many of his disciples constantly did when they couldn’t accept his teachings.

Again, if you had bothered to even read the Gospels for yourself, you would learn something in regards to your arbitrary notion of “moral improvement”. Christ goes on to free everyone from servanthood he says “I no longer call you servants, but friends. A servant doesn’t know his masters business, but I have taught you everything I learned from the father.” (paraphrase).

Like I said, so we don’t misunderstand you, what is “moral improvement”?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

ASimon

**My point, again, is that for a guy with the moral scruples of Christ, he sure picked an odd metaphor to relay his message. There wasn’t any other way for him to make his point to the slave-owning classes of the greater Jerusalem area? **

Yeah. he made his point a number of times, but you missed all those times because you never read the Gospels except vicariously through atheist websites, where they showed you how to insult the character of Jesus.

He refuted slavery in one sentence, and subsequent Christians, when they got numerous enough, defeated the slavery of the Roman Empire just by living that one sentence.

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

And if you do otherwise, that also will be done unto you.

 

[ASimon]

Like I said, so we don’t misunderstand you, what is “moral improvement”?

What I mean when I say the NT is a moral improvement over the OT, is that, on balance, the lessons of the NT, when applied, do a much better job increasing the well-being of conscious creatures than do the lessons of the OT. Fewer genocides, fewer injunctions to murder our neighbors for “crimes” like blasphemy/not marrying their rapist/sleeping with folk of their own gender, that kind of thing. Still not the best word on moral behavior that’s ever been authored, but certainly a step in the right direction, considering its predecessor.
Charlemagne II:

Yeah. he made his point a number of times, but you missed all those times because you never read the Gospels except vicariously through atheist websites, where they showed you how to insult the character of Jesus.

He refuted slavery in one sentence, and subsequent Christians, when they got numerous enough, defeated the slavery of the Roman Empire just by living that one sentence.

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

And if you do otherwise, that also will be done unto you.

All you’ve done here is illustrate what vastly self-contradictory book The Bible actually is. You can catch Jesus in half his moods and get some decent moral instruction, but in the other half, he enjoins some pretty shameful behavior (I didn’t mention the other parable in Luke with the implicit message that all those who would not be ruled by Him be brought forth and killed in front of Him).

Indeed, Christ’s lessons of charity seemed lost on the Confederate slaveholders of the American South in the 19th century. They often used The Bible (both OT and NT) as explicit justification for the practice, even while the equally Christian abolitionists were trying to end it.

And anyway, you can find The Golden Rule written down in The Analects of Confucius that predate Jesus by at least a couple centuries

 

[Jcnava15]

What I mean when I say the NT is a moral improvement over the OT, is that, on balance, the lessons of the NT, when applied, do a much better job increasing the well-being of conscious creatures than do the lessons of the OT. Fewer genocides, fewer injunctions to murder our neighbors for “crimes” like blasphemy/not marrying their rapist/sleeping with folk of their own gender, that kind of thing. Still not the best word on moral behavior that’s ever been authored, but certainly a step in the right direction, considering its predecessor.

“A step in the right direction [morally]”

“Increasing the well being of conscious creatures”

So you’re definition of “moral improvement” is to restate the concept in question?

Unless you have hard scientific facts to define this concept, you must explain to everybody why YOUR idea of “Moral Improvement” is correct and worthy of application.

I mean obviously you must have it right because you are able to see where others, like Christ, got it wrong. An expert can point out rightly where the novice got it wrong.

But if it’s just your private idea of morality that you’re basing your judgements on then that’s just your opinion. I’m not interested in opinions.

 

[ASimon]

“A step in the right direction [morally]”

“Increasing the well being of conscious creatures”

So you’re definition of “moral improvement” is to restate the concept in question?

Well, yes - to restate it from the idea that the objective basis for morality can only come from the Word of God, as interpreted through a book not completed until nearly 2,000 years ago.

Unless you have hard scientific facts to define this concept, you must explain to everybody why YOUR idea of “Moral Improvement” is correct and worthy of application.

Luckily, I do have hard scientific facts. For example, human well-being depends entirely on events in the world and on states in the human brain. These states can be observed using current technology. Consequently, there must be scientific truths to be known about them. This does not mean we can solve every moral question this way, but we certainly know enough that we can make some basic determinations about what’s moral and what is not.

This basis for morality is correct because it is, quite literally, the only thing we can truly care about when it comes to articulating moral concerns. Even religion admits this, whether it realizes it or not. But the difference is that for the religious, the question of well-being extends into what happens after we die. A choice that may be considered immoral to someone like me may be perfectly moral to someone like you, but that’s because you’re taking into consideration how this choice will affect your consciousness after you die. But even this case, well-being is the bedrock concern. The predominant difference between you and I is that you think the most important changes in human consciousness don’t happen until AFTER we die.

But if it’s just your private idea of morality that you’re basing your judgements on then that’s just your opinion. I’m not interested in opinions.

I can assure you that it’s not just my opinion. I would submit that you cannot articulate a basis for morality that does not ultimately reduce to questions of human and animal well-being. And if you think can articulate a basis for morality that has nothing to do with well-being, then neither one of us knows what you’re talking about.

 

[John21652]

Because we are convinced a Godless universe is irrational, amoral, purposeless and valueless and cannot account for rationality, morality, purpose and value.

And it all scares them, so they rationalise it all away by inventing rediculous ‘scientific’ theories and preaching out loud to make themselves seem important and all-knowing.
Another ‘ism’, if you like.

I mean, something out of nothing and all without someone to light the match…

C’mon Dawkins, Mr. Materialist.

 

[Jcnava15]

Well, yes - to restate it from the idea that the objective basis for morality can only come from the Word of God, as interpreted through a book not completed until nearly 2,000 years ago.

Luckily, I do have hard scientific facts. For example, human well-being depends entirely on events in the world and on states in the human brain. These states can be observed using current technology. Consequently, there must be scientific truths to be known about them. This does not mean we can solve every moral question this way, but we certainly know enough that we can make some basic determinations about what’s moral and what is not.

This basis for morality is correct because it is, quite literally, the only thing we can truly care about when it comes to articulating moral concerns. Even religion admits this, whether it realizes it or not. But the difference is that for the religious, the question of well-being extends into what happens after we die. A choice that may be considered immoral to someone like me may be perfectly moral to someone like you, but that’s because you’re taking into consideration how this choice will affect your consciousness after you die. But even this case, well-being is the bedrock concern. The predominant difference between you and I is that you think the most important changes in human consciousness don’t happen until AFTER we die.

I can assure you that it’s not just my opinion. I would submit that you cannot articulate a basis for morality that does not ultimately reduce to questions of human and animal well-being. And if you think can articulate a basis for morality that has nothing to do with well-being, then neither one of us knows what you’re talking about.

You still haven’t defined anything. Your conclusion is that human well being is somehow the basis for morality. That is what I questioned.

Your OPINION is that the “correct” moral end is committed to improving the well being of concious creatures. There is no scientific evidence to substantiate that. In fact there is no scientific evidence to determine why anybody should be moral at all, because good and evil are not things that can be measured scientifically.

If you are insisting that the well being of creatures is the ultimate goal of morality than I will insist that it is just your opinion.

Your “data” about brain states does not apply because you are assuming that that which I called into question is already accepted, you are begging the question.

You are in effect saying; that which improves human well being is an improvement in morality, because an improvement in morality improves human well being. This is a good example of circular reasoning.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

ASimon

Indeed, Christ’s lessons of charity seemed lost on the Confederate slaveholders of the American South in the 19th century.

The abolitionists were mostly religious. Having found religion, Lincoln abolished slavery.

**You can catch Jesus in half his moods and get some decent moral instruction, but in the other half, he enjoins some pretty shameful behavior (I didn’t mention the other parable in Luke with the implicit message that all those who would not be ruled by Him be brought forth and killed in front of Him). **

You really have no shame, do you? Was dying on the cross for our sins also, in your mind, more shameful behavior? I believe you are in this Forum only to taunt Catholics, not to find the truth.

Confucius said: “Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself.”

This is a far cry from what Jesus said, since Jesus accentuates the positive rather than the negative. The wisdom of Jesus is not inferior to the wisdom of Confucius, if you are trying to imply that Confucius was smarter than Jesus. Accentuating the positive is what Jesus did in Matthew 25, when he said we should do unto others all kinds of charitable acts, and then promised retribution if we do not follow his teachings. To you that would seem to be a form of cruelty, so I expect to hear you say once again that Christ was shamefully cruel in Matthew 25.

But to Christians the promised reward or retribution only means that actions have consequences, and that Christ is allowing us to choose … heaven or hell.

 

[ASimon]

You still haven’t defined anything. Your conclusion is that human well being is somehow the basis for morality. That is what I questioned.

Your OPINION is that the “correct” moral end is committed to improving the well being of concious creatures. There is no scientific evidence to substantiate that. In fact there is no scientific evidence to determine why anybody should be moral at all, because good and evil are not things that can be measured scientifically.

If you are insisting that the well being of creatures is the ultimate goal of morality than I will insist that it is just your opinion.

Your “data” about brain states does not apply because you are assuming that that which I called into question is already accepted, you are begging the question.

You are in effect saying; that which improves human well being is an improvement in morality, because an improvement in morality improves human well being. This is a good example of circular reasoning.

All you’re doing here is playing the “utter skepticism” card. The fact is that no realm of knowledge can withstand utter skepticism - it’s only a question of how much skepticism we allow into the conservation on any given topic. Just the fact that you can articulate an objection that, if credited, would throw everything back into play, doesn’t mean that your objection is worth seriously considering.

By analogy, the aim of the science of medicine is the improvement of physical health. Your objection to my basis for morality would amount to you saying (about the basis for medicine), that it’s only my OPINION that the correct end of medicine is the improvement of physical health, but that there’s no scientific evidence to substantiate that, and in fact there’s no scientific evidence evidence to determine why anyone should want to improve physical health, because physical health and sickness are not things you can measure scientifically.

No doubt, you see see how nonsensical these sorts of objections would be, if we were talking about physical health. If we decided to credit your “That’s only your opinion” objection in every case, anyone could effectively detonate any branch of knowledge or science with this content-free, filbustering move. To put it another way, how would you fashion a logical argument to someone that we should value logical arguments when we’re arguing? The answer is, you can’t. But luckily, you don’t need to, either. At the heart of every realm of knowledge is a self-justifying assumption. In some cases, that assumption might admit of honest exceptions, in which case, the assumption would need to be refashioned. But the mere fact that a realm of knowledge begins with an assumption does not, ipso facto, render the whole enterprise unscientific. The content of the objection and the quality of the argument have to matter, and not all objections and arguments are worth taking seriously.

So then, back to morality. You’ve claimed to question my conclusion that human well-being is the basis for human morality. But I notice you haven’t questioned it on the grounds that you think I’m wrong, or that you disagree with me. Again, I maintain that you and I are in agreement on this point. The difference is that, when you’re considering well-being, you’re taking into account a much longer timeline than I am.

 

[ASimon]

ASimon

Indeed, Christ’s lessons of charity seemed lost on the Confederate slaveholders of the American South in the 19th century.

The abolitionists were mostly religious. Having found religion, Lincoln abolished slavery.

You missed my point. I said that the Confederate slaveholders justified slavery in Biblical terms. And they did. Here is a direct quote from Jefferson Davis:

"(Slavery) was established by decree of Almighty God…it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation…it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts."

Yes, there were abolitionists who also justified their beliefs in Biblical and Christian terms. That was also part of my point. The Bible is vastly self-contradictory book. It allows for two different people to call themselves Christian and reach wildly different conclusions on what’s moral and what’s not.

**You can catch Jesus in half his moods and get some decent moral instruction, but in the other half, he enjoins some pretty shameful behavior (I didn’t mention the other parable in Luke with the implicit message that all those who would not be ruled by Him be brought forth and killed in front of Him). **

You really have no shame, do you? Was dying on the cross for our sins also, in your mind, more shameful behavior? I believe you are in this Forum only to taunt Catholics, not to find the truth.

I can assure you that I’m not here to taunt Catholics. You brought all this into play - don’t blame me if you think I fail to show proper deference to your Savior. Don’t be surprised either. I don’t believe your God exists, and I’m only barely willing to credit the idea that Jesus existed. Given this, you shouldn’t be at all shocked that I don’t think every word he uttered was dripping with perfect moral goodness.

But since you asked (again…), no, I don’t think vicarious redemption is, in point of fact, a moral idea. We’re not allowed to absolve other people of their responsibility for immoral acts they commit against people not ourselves. If I wrong you, you can either forgive me for it, or not. I have to deal with the possibility that you might not, and the consequences of that. But if a 3rd party could just sail in and forgive me on your behalf, that would pretty much mean the absolute negation of personal responsibility.

Confucius said: “Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself.”

This is a far cry from what Jesus said, since Jesus accentuates the positive rather than the negative. The wisdom of Jesus is not inferior to the wisdom of Confucius, if you are trying to imply that Confucius was smarter than Jesus. Accentuating the positive is what Jesus did in Matthew 25, when he said we should do unto others all kinds of charitable acts, and then promised retribution if we do not follow his teachings. To you that would seem to be a form of cruelty, so I expect to hear you say once again that Christ was shamefully cruel in Matthew 25.

But to Christians the promised reward or retribution only means that actions have consequences, and that Christ is allowing us to choose … heaven or hell.

Functionally speaking, there’s no difference at all between what Confucius said and what Jesus said. That Jesus “accentuates the positive” doesn’t change the content, nor improve upon what Confucius said a few centuries earlier. My point was not that Confucius was smarter than Jesus. My point was Confucius came up with the Golden Rule before Jesus did. It was not a revolutionary idea.

Also, when the consequences of one choice mean eternal Paradise, and the consequences of the opposite choice mean eternal suffering, then we needn’t kid ourselves that this in any way represents a real choice, or that this choice is somehow a gift.

 

[Jcnava15]

All you’re doing here is playing the “utter skepticism” card. The fact is that no realm of knowledge can withstand utter skepticism - it’s only a question of how much skepticism we allow into the conservation on any given topic. Just the fact that you can articulate an objection that, if credited, would throw everything back into play, doesn’t mean that your objection is worth seriously considering.

By analogy, the aim of the science of medicine is the improvement of physical health. Your objection to my basis for morality would amount to you saying (about the basis for medicine), that it’s only my OPINION that the correct end of medicine is the improvement of physical health, but that there’s no scientific evidence to substantiate that, and in fact there’s no scientific evidence evidence to determine why anyone should want to improve physical health, because physical health and sickness are not things you can measure scientifically.

No doubt, you see see how nonsensical these sorts of objections would be, if we were talking about physical health. If we decided to credit your “That’s only your opinion” objection in every case, anyone could effectively detonate any branch of knowledge or science with this content-free, filbustering move. To put it another way, how would you fashion a logical argument to someone that we should value logical arguments when we’re arguing? The answer is, you can’t. But luckily, you don’t need to, either. At the heart of every realm of knowledge is a self-justifying assumption. In some cases, that assumption might admit of honest exceptions, in which case, the assumption would need to be refashioned. But the mere fact that a realm of knowledge begins with an assumption does not, ipso facto, render the whole enterprise unscientific. The content of the objection and the quality of the argument have to matter, and not all objections and arguments are worth taking seriously.

So then, back to morality. You’ve claimed to question my conclusion that human well-being is the basis for human morality. But I notice you haven’t questioned it on the grounds that you think I’m wrong, or that you disagree with me. Again, I maintain that you and I are in agreement on this point. The difference is that, when you’re considering well-being, you’re taking into account a much longer timeline than I am.

That’s is false, I am not playing the utter skeptic card. Just because your line of logic reduces to circular reasoning, doesn’t mean you get a free pass.

Your analogy about medicine doesn’t fly either, because in fact, physical health is something that can be measured. Improving physical health is the aim of medicine. Why we should improve physical health is a questions of ethics, the very thing we are discussing.

My basis for morality isn’t based on human well being, and it has little to do with timelines. I can tell you have a narrow view of what theists actually believe considering you think we are obsessed with the afterlife. We don’t agree.

You only want to know what my basis for morality is so that you can criticize it, and feel satisfied that yours is better, and as such relief yourself of explaining yourself.

But I’m not the one making moral judgements here. So my basis for morality isn’t in question here. You are the one who was handing out lofty criticisms on moral grounds, of Christians/theists, the bible, and Christ, as if your morality was correct. You said that Christ’s teaching were “a step in the right direction” but still flawed.

So as such it is not an unfair thing for me to question your basis for morality. Your answer reduces to a poorly constructed form of utilitarianism.

So again, unless you can provide an absolute foundation for your basis of morality, I don’t see any reason why your take is anymore in touch with reality than anybody else’s, or why anybody should care that you disagree with anybody else’s. We hear your opinion, and that’s nice.

Quit dodging the question, where is the evidence to support your conclusion?

But honestly at this point I highly doubt you can provide any.