What is morality?

who raped you?

@GodIsReal101
+If God CANNOT do things that are morally unjustified+
But the bible has him do such things over and over. So God does behave immorally, which proves he is evil, or the bible is a lie. You decide.

@GodIsReal101
+Atheist and Theist can be moral. But who created moral+

Who? Thats an assumption.
What created morals is irrelevant. Your proposed god slew all the Amelakites including babies for raiding the Israelites, the babies can't have taken part in battle. God went further and slew all the Amelakite animals, taking injustice just that bit further. Now how can a creator of morals be immoral?
God cannot be unjust and be moral. The bible proves god is immoral over and over.

Here's an example.

When natural disaster occurs and theres no athourity to regulate rules. What happens?

People run wild, doing things that would be against societys grip of fundamentals.




What do you call that? Can't be insanity if its a group effort can it?

If america wasn't holding a gun to our heads, i doubt morals would mean all the things it stands for today.

And its almost impossible to defend the church with morality, they teach hate and predjudice on a daily basis.

Why not? when was it decided that murder was wrong? It was pefectly normal in the past, but because a group of people said no, its wrong?

Things have changed, the only reason people follow these rules is because society would have them condemed or killed. "Fear" is what keeps moral.

Fear is what keeps other countries in check. We can destroy others with the push of a button.

Right and wrong, give me a break.

America already treats me as an enemy, so what type monster are you?

Any way, this whole debate is pointless. The main problem with the divine morality is that it is based on something that does not exist.

Nice talking with you. I hope others reading will see that evolutionary and biological examples have yet answered where the moral changer would fit in the formula. In short in a Atheist community the moral changer would have to be wrong if society picks the morality. If you take away the fact that random murder is wrong and will always be wrong then your no absolute morality theory has been debunked. So to any reader is it wrong to walk up to someone and murder them? Has it always been wrong?

Ah, so this is the act of the loving God. To punish all of mankind with death, destruction, disease, pain and so on because several thousand years ago, a women was tricked into eating some fruit by a talking snake. Really loving.

And what does a perfect world mean, anyway? Without natural disasters? Were there no plate tectonics in God's perfect world?

I knew you were going to drive the conversation to this point. It is a huge mistake to pretend that there are no lines and that right and wrong do not exist. As you would think someone was wrong if they stole from you and anyone reading knows that in life there is right and wrong and good and evil. If not Hitler was just confused not wrong and we would all agree he was wrong for his hatred.

Yeah, i've heard this argument before. 'But good and evil exists, and I think we all know it!'
well firstly, that we feel strongly towards certain actions can be explained perfectly well through evolutionary biology, so an appeal to emotions won't work.
and secondly, our moral sense changes all the time. We used to think slaverywas moral, now we don't. We used to think racism was moral, now we don't.
If there is an unchanging moral sense in all of us, why do we keep getting it wrong?