No trace of human DNA or Deity DNA found in local eucharist

[Jamiet99uk]

Apologies. I made a mistake there. I should not have said that you cannot make moral judgements, but simply that your moral judgements mean nothing to anyone else without a standard to back them.

So while you may condemn murder, that has no bearing on the universal condemnation or support of murder.

Why does saying "I don't want to cause harm to others because I can empathise with other humans and I don't wish to cause them harm" have less value to you than "I refrain from harming others because otherwise the Lord will send me to hell"?

I put it to you that my moral judgement has *more* value because I have come to it myself, driven by altruism and empathy, not because I fear eternal punishment by an all-powerful being.

You might try to do good because you fear the punishment of hell, and because you desire rewards in the afterlife.

I try to do good despite not expecting any reward in heaven.

I don't care about pleasing magical sky daddy.

[Crazy Anglican]

Apologies. I made a mistake there. I should not have said that you cannot make moral judgements, but simply that your moral judgements mean nothing to anyone else without a standard to back them.

So while you may condemn murder, that has no bearing on the universal condemnation or support of murder.

Why does saying "I don't want to cause harm to others because I can empathise with other humans and I don't wish to cause them harm" have less value to you than "I refrain from harming others because otherwise the Lord will send me to hell"?

I put it to you that my moral judgement has *more* value because I have come to it myself, driven by altruism and empathy, not because I fear eternal punishment by an all-powerful being.

You might try to do good because you fear the punishment of hell, and because you desire rewards in the afterlife.

I try to do good despite not expecting any reward in heaven.

I don't care about pleasing magical sky daddy.

It seems to me like you are both ignoring the law against murder and the punishment of it with imprisonment. There is a standard for Jamiet99uk's decision not to murder others. Also whether it is an entirely altruistic on either your , Captain Fritz, or Jamie's part is largely inconsequential as you both are presumably under the same admonition against and possible punishment for murdering anyone under the law.

It doesn't matter if I'm a nice guy and would never murder anyone (not that it's really high praise) if someone can just come along and claim that's just because I'm afraid of the consequences.

[Jamiet99uk]

Apologies. I made a mistake there. I should not have said that you cannot make moral judgements, but simply that your moral judgements mean nothing to anyone else without a standard to back them.

So while you may condemn murder, that has no bearing on the universal condemnation or support of murder.

Why does saying "I don't want to cause harm to others because I can empathise with other humans and I don't wish to cause them harm" have less value to you than "I refrain from harming others because otherwise the Lord will send me to hell"?

I put it to you that my moral judgement has *more* value because I have come to it myself, driven by altruism and empathy, not because I fear eternal punishment by an all-powerful being.

You might try to do good because you fear the punishment of hell, and because you desire rewards in the afterlife.

I try to do good despite not expecting any reward in heaven.

I don't care about pleasing magical sky daddy.

It seems to me like you are both ignoring the law against murder and the punishment of it with imprisonment. There is a standard for Jamiet99uk's decision not to murder others. Also whether it is an entirely altruistic on either your , Captain Fritz, or Jamie's part is largely inconsequential as you both are presumably under the same admonition against and possible punishment for murdering anyone under the law.

It doesn't matter if I'm a nice guy and would never murder anyone (not that it's really high praise) if someone can just come along and claim that's just because I'm afraid of the consequences.

You are right, CA. The particular issue here is that Capt. Fritz has been trying to argue that a *lot* of people are in favour of murder and therefore we need the force of protestant Christianity to keep them in check.

[CaptainFritz28]

Apologies. I made a mistake there. I should not have said that you cannot make moral judgements, but simply that your moral judgements mean nothing to anyone else without a standard to back them.

So while you may condemn murder, that has no bearing on the universal condemnation or support of murder.

Why does saying "I don't want to cause harm to others because I can empathise with other humans and I don't wish to cause them harm" have less value to you than "I refrain from harming others because otherwise the Lord will send me to hell"?

I put it to you that my moral judgement has *more* value because I have come to it myself, driven by altruism and empathy, not because I fear eternal punishment by an all-powerful being.

You might try to do good because you fear the punishment of hell, and because you desire rewards in the afterlife.

I try to do good despite not expecting any reward in heaven.

I don't care about pleasing magical sky daddy.

If you're going to insult Christianity based on its doctrine, at least have a basic understanding of its doctrine.
Doing good is not a path to salvation, and not doing good does not create a threat of Hell. We are only saved by the sacrifice of Christ and His resurrection. Nothing we do can change that.
If a Christian does good motivated by their religion, it is not because they fear eternal consequence for failing, nor because they simply wish to please God (although that is an added bonus).
It is because they have been shown immense love in Jesus' great suffering for our sake, and they wish to return that love to others.

Inherently, sure, the fact that I am commanded to not murder and thus do so is not inherently any superior to the fact that you choose not to murder. Kudos to you.
The fact that I am commanded not to murder, however, is driven by something outside of myself and more powerful than I - the love of others because of Christ's love of me. Now sure, it doesn't take much love not to murder, but it also doesn't take a lot of empathy or altruism not to murder.
Your choice not to murder is based on "My morality is the right morality because I say it is, and I back that up with my ideas of altruism and empathy" but provides no framework against someone saying "I believe that the best thing for this person is for me to murder them, and that is the most altruistic and empathetic thing I can do for them."

Your morality provides no rationale against others who disagree with it, meaning there is nothing to back up your claim that murder is evil.
My morality is driven by a higher authority, with a standard to back up my claim that murder is evil.

[CaptainFritz28]

Apologies. I made a mistake there. I should not have said that you cannot make moral judgements, but simply that your moral judgements mean nothing to anyone else without a standard to back them.

So while you may condemn murder, that has no bearing on the universal condemnation or support of murder.

Why does saying "I don't want to cause harm to others because I can empathise with other humans and I don't wish to cause them harm" have less value to you than "I refrain from harming others because otherwise the Lord will send me to hell"?

I put it to you that my moral judgement has *more* value because I have come to it myself, driven by altruism and empathy, not because I fear eternal punishment by an all-powerful being.

You might try to do good because you fear the punishment of hell, and because you desire rewards in the afterlife.

I try to do good despite not expecting any reward in heaven.

I don't care about pleasing magical sky daddy.

It seems to me like you are both ignoring the law against murder and the punishment of it with imprisonment. There is a standard for Jamiet99uk's decision not to murder others. Also whether it is an entirely altruistic on either your , Captain Fritz, or Jamie's part is largely inconsequential as you both are presumably under the same admonition against and possible punishment for murdering anyone under the law.

It doesn't matter if I'm a nice guy and would never murder anyone (not that it's really high praise) if someone can just come along and claim that's just because I'm afraid of the consequences.

So you are advocating that laws determine morality? Or do I misunderstand your meaning?

[CaptainFritz28]

Why does saying "I don't want to cause harm to others because I can empathise with other humans and I don't wish to cause them harm" have less value to you than "I refrain from harming others because otherwise the Lord will send me to hell"?

I put it to you that my moral judgement has *more* value because I have come to it myself, driven by altruism and empathy, not because I fear eternal punishment by an all-powerful being.

You might try to do good because you fear the punishment of hell, and because you desire rewards in the afterlife.

I try to do good despite not expecting any reward in heaven.

I don't care about pleasing magical sky daddy.

It seems to me like you are both ignoring the law against murder and the punishment of it with imprisonment. There is a standard for Jamiet99uk's decision not to murder others. Also whether it is an entirely altruistic on either your , Captain Fritz, or Jamie's part is largely inconsequential as you both are presumably under the same admonition against and possible punishment for murdering anyone under the law.

It doesn't matter if I'm a nice guy and would never murder anyone (not that it's really high praise) if someone can just come along and claim that's just because I'm afraid of the consequences.

You are right, CA. The particular issue here is that Capt. Fritz has been trying to argue that a *lot* of people are in favour of murder and therefore we need the force of protestant Christianity to keep them in check.

My claim only requires that there be at least one murderer to disprove yours. Morality must be able to apply to all, and if yours cannot apply to the minority, however small it may be, then it is not a valid moral framework.

[Jamiet99uk]

Apologies. I made a mistake there. I should not have said that you cannot make moral judgements, but simply that your moral judgements mean nothing to anyone else without a standard to back them.

So while you may condemn murder, that has no bearing on the universal condemnation or support of murder.

Why does saying "I don't want to cause harm to others because I can empathise with other humans and I don't wish to cause them harm" have less value to you than "I refrain from harming others because otherwise the Lord will send me to hell"?

I put it to you that my moral judgement has *more* value because I have come to it myself, driven by altruism and empathy, not because I fear eternal punishment by an all-powerful being.

You might try to do good because you fear the punishment of hell, and because you desire rewards in the afterlife.

I try to do good despite not expecting any reward in heaven.

I don't care about pleasing magical sky daddy.

If you're going to insult Christianity based on its doctrine, at least have a basic understanding of its doctrine.
Doing good is not a path to salvation, and not doing good does not create a threat of Hell. We are only saved by the sacrifice of Christ and His resurrection. Nothing we do can change that.
If a Christian does good motivated by their religion, it is not because they fear eternal consequence for failing, nor because they simply wish to please God (although that is an added bonus).
It is because they have been shown immense love in Jesus' great suffering for our sake, and they wish to return that love to others.

Inherently, sure, the fact that I am commanded to not murder and thus do so is not inherently any superior to the fact that you choose not to murder. Kudos to you.
The fact that I am commanded not to murder, however, is driven by something outside of myself and more powerful than I - the love of others because of Christ's love of me. Now sure, it doesn't take much love not to murder, but it also doesn't take a lot of empathy or altruism not to murder.
Your choice not to murder is based on "My morality is the right morality because I say it is, and I back that up with my ideas of altruism and empathy" but provides no framework against someone saying "I believe that the best thing for this person is for me to murder them, and that is the most altruistic and empathetic thing I can do for them."

Your morality provides no rationale against others who disagree with it, meaning there is nothing to back up your claim that murder is evil.
My morality is driven by a higher authority, with a standard to back up my claim that murder is evil.

Your standard is founded on make-believe.

[Jamiet99uk]

It seems to me like you are both ignoring the law against murder and the punishment of it with imprisonment. There is a standard for Jamiet99uk's decision not to murder others. Also whether it is an entirely altruistic on either your , Captain Fritz, or Jamie's part is largely inconsequential as you both are presumably under the same admonition against and possible punishment for murdering anyone under the law.

It doesn't matter if I'm a nice guy and would never murder anyone (not that it's really high praise) if someone can just come along and claim that's just because I'm afraid of the consequences.

You are right, CA. The particular issue here is that Capt. Fritz has been trying to argue that a *lot* of people are in favour of murder and therefore we need the force of protestant Christianity to keep them in check.

My claim only requires that there be at least one murderer to disprove yours. Morality must be able to apply to all, and if yours cannot apply to the minority, however small it may be, then it is not a valid moral framework.

Wrong. The existence of a murderer proves that there are bad people as well as good; insane people as well as reasonable people. It does not invalidate the concept of secular morality driven by empathy, unless you can prove that all murderers are atheists who think their actions are morally just.

[Jamiet99uk]

Otherwise, it would only take a few murderers, who were church-going Protestants, to invalidate your claim. You appear to be saying "how can there be secular morality when there are murderers, huh!?!" - but you know perfectly well that there are also Christian murderers who believe in God, and who have read the Bible.

[CaptainFritz28]

Your claim was that morality is something we all know because we are human. Thus, it must hold true for all humans. If even one human doesn't know it, then your claim that it is inherent to us because we are humans falls apart.

[CaptainFritz28]

Why does saying "I don't want to cause harm to others because I can empathise with other humans and I don't wish to cause them harm" have less value to you than "I refrain from harming others because otherwise the Lord will send me to hell"?

I put it to you that my moral judgement has *more* value because I have come to it myself, driven by altruism and empathy, not because I fear eternal punishment by an all-powerful being.

You might try to do good because you fear the punishment of hell, and because you desire rewards in the afterlife.

I try to do good despite not expecting any reward in heaven.

I don't care about pleasing magical sky daddy.

If you're going to insult Christianity based on its doctrine, at least have a basic understanding of its doctrine.
Doing good is not a path to salvation, and not doing good does not create a threat of Hell. We are only saved by the sacrifice of Christ and His resurrection. Nothing we do can change that.
If a Christian does good motivated by their religion, it is not because they fear eternal consequence for failing, nor because they simply wish to please God (although that is an added bonus).
It is because they have been shown immense love in Jesus' great suffering for our sake, and they wish to return that love to others.

Inherently, sure, the fact that I am commanded to not murder and thus do so is not inherently any superior to the fact that you choose not to murder. Kudos to you.
The fact that I am commanded not to murder, however, is driven by something outside of myself and more powerful than I - the love of others because of Christ's love of me. Now sure, it doesn't take much love not to murder, but it also doesn't take a lot of empathy or altruism not to murder.
Your choice not to murder is based on "My morality is the right morality because I say it is, and I back that up with my ideas of altruism and empathy" but provides no framework against someone saying "I believe that the best thing for this person is for me to murder them, and that is the most altruistic and empathetic thing I can do for them."

Your morality provides no rationale against others who disagree with it, meaning there is nothing to back up your claim that murder is evil.
My morality is driven by a higher authority, with a standard to back up my claim that murder is evil.

Your standard is founded on make-believe.

A) Prove it.

B) Even if it is, it's at least an ultimate standard, and the standard responsible for modern civil rights, equality among social classes, education, representation in government, and all the other benefits quoted in the studies I mentioned.

Atheism has no standard at all, which is its first point of failure, and it's biggest claim to fame is a hundred million unjust deaths from communism, as well as the return of slavery in China and the USSR.

[Jamiet99uk]

Your claim was that morality is something we all know because we are human. Thus, it must hold true for all humans. If even one human doesn't know it, then your claim that it is inherent to us because we are humans falls apart.

My claim is more nuanced than that, thank you.

I am saying humans are generally capable of empathy. From this we are able to determine that some things cause pain and harm, and are generally wrong. It does not require every living human to possess equal empathy, nor does it require every loving human to make exactly the same value judgements, to make the general point sound. Nor is the general point invalidated by the occurrence of a very small instance of psychopaths, mentally ill people, or people who decide to do wrong despite knowing it is wrong.

[Jamiet99uk]

If you're going to insult Christianity based on its doctrine, at least have a basic understanding of its doctrine.
Doing good is not a path to salvation, and not doing good does not create a threat of Hell. We are only saved by the sacrifice of Christ and His resurrection. Nothing we do can change that.
If a Christian does good motivated by their religion, it is not because they fear eternal consequence for failing, nor because they simply wish to please God (although that is an added bonus).
It is because they have been shown immense love in Jesus' great suffering for our sake, and they wish to return that love to others.

Inherently, sure, the fact that I am commanded to not murder and thus do so is not inherently any superior to the fact that you choose not to murder. Kudos to you.
The fact that I am commanded not to murder, however, is driven by something outside of myself and more powerful than I - the love of others because of Christ's love of me. Now sure, it doesn't take much love not to murder, but it also doesn't take a lot of empathy or altruism not to murder.
Your choice not to murder is based on "My morality is the right morality because I say it is, and I back that up with my ideas of altruism and empathy" but provides no framework against someone saying "I believe that the best thing for this person is for me to murder them, and that is the most altruistic and empathetic thing I can do for them."

Your morality provides no rationale against others who disagree with it, meaning there is nothing to back up your claim that murder is evil.
My morality is driven by a higher authority, with a standard to back up my claim that murder is evil.

Your standard is founded on make-believe.

A) Prove it.

B) Even if it is, it's at least an ultimate standard, and the standard responsible for modern civil rights, equality among social classes, education, representation in government, and all the other benefits quoted in the studies I mentioned.

Atheism has no standard at all, which is its first point of failure, and it's biggest claim to fame is a hundred million unjust deaths from communism, as well as the return of slavery in China and the USSR.

A) You are the one claiming that God exists and that the Bible is His infallible word. The burden of proof is on you.

B) For the 27th time this month, ATHEISM IS NOT A MORAL STANDARD NOR DOES IT ATTEMPT TO BE. Your repetition of this false argument against atheism as a system of morality, despite multiple reminders that this argument is invalid and irrelevant, is now becoming very annoying.

[CaptainFritz28]

Your claim was that morality is something we all know because we are human. Thus, it must hold true for all humans. If even one human doesn't know it, then your claim that it is inherent to us because we are humans falls apart.

My claim is more nuanced than that, thank you.

I am saying humans are generally capable of empathy. From this we are able to determine that some things cause pain and harm, and are generally wrong. It does not require every living human to possess equal empathy, nor does it require every loving human to make exactly the same value judgements, to make the general point sound. Nor is the general point invalidated by the occurrence of a very small instance of psychopaths, mentally ill people, or people who decide to do wrong despite knowing it is wrong.

So then, what are these people? Less evolved than the rest of us? Why is there a difference between them and the rest of humanity?

And even then, why are there so many differing opinions on what empathy is in practicality if it is an innate thing provided us by Evolution?

[CaptainFritz28]

Your standard is founded on make-believe.

A) Prove it.

B) Even if it is, it's at least an ultimate standard, and the standard responsible for modern civil rights, equality among social classes, education, representation in government, and all the other benefits quoted in the studies I mentioned.

Atheism has no standard at all, which is its first point of failure, and it's biggest claim to fame is a hundred million unjust deaths from communism, as well as the return of slavery in China and the USSR.

A) You are the one claiming that God exists and that the Bible is His infallible word. The burden of proof is on you.

B) For the 27th time this month, ATHEISM IS NOT A MORAL STANDARD NOR DOES IT ATTEMPT TO BE. Your repetition of this false argument against atheism as a system of morality, despite multiple reminders that this argument is invalid and irrelevant, is now becoming very annoying.

A) This is a claim that has been made by you various times, all unsupported. I've at least given support for mine, whether you believe it or not. I would like to see some proof from your end.

B) Well, then, explain to us morality. Atheism doesn't give a framework, doesn't claim to, doesn't try to. Sure, that's great. What does, then? Empathy. OK. And what gives empathy morality? A want to make people happy and not harm people. OK. And what makes that moral? At some point it comes back around to your worldview, being Atheism. Inherently, your morals are derived from how you view the universe. Your view stipulates that there is no provider of ultimate moral truth, which would be a god. Thus, Atheism only provides that when it comes to it, your morals are based on yourself.

[Jamiet99uk]

Your claim was that morality is something we all know because we are human. Thus, it must hold true for all humans. If even one human doesn't know it, then your claim that it is inherent to us because we are humans falls apart.

My claim is more nuanced than that, thank you.

I am saying humans are generally capable of empathy. From this we are able to determine that some things cause pain and harm, and are generally wrong. It does not require every living human to possess equal empathy, nor does it require every loving human to make exactly the same value judgements, to make the general point sound. Nor is the general point invalidated by the occurrence of a very small instance of psychopaths, mentally ill people, or people who decide to do wrong despite knowing it is wrong.

So then, what are these people? Less evolved than the rest of us? Why is there a difference between them and the rest of humanity?

And even then, why are there so many differing opinions on what empathy is in practicality if it is an innate thing provided us by Evolution?

Why do you believe everyone's mind is, or should be, identical?

[Jamiet99uk]

A) Prove it.

B) Even if it is, it's at least an ultimate standard, and the standard responsible for modern civil rights, equality among social classes, education, representation in government, and all the other benefits quoted in the studies I mentioned.

Atheism has no standard at all, which is its first point of failure, and it's biggest claim to fame is a hundred million unjust deaths from communism, as well as the return of slavery in China and the USSR.

A) You are the one claiming that God exists and that the Bible is His infallible word. The burden of proof is on you.

B) For the 27th time this month, ATHEISM IS NOT A MORAL STANDARD NOR DOES IT ATTEMPT TO BE. Your repetition of this false argument against atheism as a system of morality, despite multiple reminders that this argument is invalid and irrelevant, is now becoming very annoying.

A) This is a claim that has been made by you various times, all unsupported. I've at least given support for mine, whether you believe it or not. I would like to see some proof from your end.

B) Well, then, explain to us morality. Atheism doesn't give a framework, doesn't claim to, doesn't try to. Sure, that's great. What does, then? Empathy. OK. And what gives empathy morality? A want to make people happy and not harm people. OK. And what makes that moral? At some point it comes back around to your worldview, being Atheism. Inherently, your morals are derived from how you view the universe. Your view stipulates that there is no provider of ultimate moral truth, which would be a god. Thus, Atheism only provides that when it comes to it, your morals are based on yourself.

A) What claim, precisely, are you asking me to provide proof for?

B) Morality is what society, as a collective, perceives it to be. Absent of a book of instructions from a mythical sky daddy, how else are we to arrive at a moral standpoint? We must look within and around ourselves. Are my morals based on myself? To some degree, yes, as they are partly a product of my thought process over many years of living, self reflection, and discussion. They are also based on the moral positions, and the actions, of others around me, as I perceive them. They are based on the history of our society and the social norms and contracts that have accompanied the progress of our society over generations.

I am happy to conceive that if I believed firmly that God existed, and that He was benevolent, and loved us all, and wanted good things to happen to good people, then I would happily accept a moral code based on the pronouncements of God and the example of Jesus. However, I don't believe in God. This is not a choice on my part. It is my position that I am incapable of conceiving in God. Belief in God is not in my nature.

[CaptainFritz28]

My claim is more nuanced than that, thank you.

I am saying humans are generally capable of empathy. From this we are able to determine that some things cause pain and harm, and are generally wrong. It does not require every living human to possess equal empathy, nor does it require every loving human to make exactly the same value judgements, to make the general point sound. Nor is the general point invalidated by the occurrence of a very small instance of psychopaths, mentally ill people, or people who decide to do wrong despite knowing it is wrong.

So then, what are these people? Less evolved than the rest of us? Why is there a difference between them and the rest of humanity?

And even then, why are there so many differing opinions on what empathy is in practicality if it is an innate thing provided us by Evolution?

Why do you believe everyone's mind is, or should be, identical?

All I'm saying is that if we all evolved to have empathy, and that is our standard of morals, what explains the differences in people's definitions of empathy?
If it is an evolutionary instinct, why are there contradicting views of it?

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

B) Morality is what society, as a collective, perceives it to be. Absent of a book of instructions from a mythical sky daddy, how else are we to arrive at a moral standpoint? We must look within and around ourselves. Are my morals based on myself? To some degree, yes, as they are partly a product of my thought process over many years of living, self reflection, and discussion. They are also based on the moral positions, and the actions, of others around me, as I perceive them. They are based on the history of our society and the social norms and contracts that have accompanied the progress of our society over generations.

Just to highlight the variety of non-religious moral thought, it's also totally consistent to be agnostic or atheist and disagree with Jamie's point here.

I think morality is probably something more like mathematics - a set of objective principles that humans can discover through inquiry and trial-and-error. The Roman numeral system was, in fact, wrong and incomplete for lacking the concept of "0", even though it was widely used and believed in. Even if this error had been repeated for centuries, it would have still been wrong.

I believe the same is true with morality. I don't think the majority gets to decide what's moral, or that I get to decide what's moral. There are many objective non-religious traditions that do just this:

Kant convincingly suggested that something cannot be morally right unless it can be applied universally - the definition of objectivity. If his argument is convincing to you, then lying isn't wrong because society disapproves of it, but because if everyone lied, trust and communication would break down, which is a logically inconsistent outcome.

Utilitarianism frequently gets criticized for ostensibly endorsing extreme measures like mass murder or for imposing a subjective notion of "utility", but it is actually grounded in an objective ethical framework. At its core, Utilitarianism posits the existence of an objective metric for assessing the moral value of actions based on their outcomes. This metric is centered on the concept of maximizing overall happiness or well-being, and minimizing suffering. A consistent utilitarian doesn't arbitrarily decide what counts as 'good' or 'bad'; rather, they aim to evaluate actions based on their impact on the collective well-being. This approach to ethics insists on a moral responsibility to enhance the net balance of good over harm in the world. This is actually quite similar to how CF goes about deciding what actions produce the most "love".

The Golden Rule isn't just Christian, but rather a fact about human morality that has been discovered many times over: treat others how you want to be treated is as close to a scientific discovery about how to improve human flourishing as we may even get.

From these objective, non-religious moral traditions, I can stand beside myself and my society and criticize all sorts of moral evils even if they're popular. A Kantian, consistent Utilitarian, and a non-religious Golden Rule adherent would all have condemned slavery even if they lived in a pro-slavery society. They all know the wrongness of wanton murder, etc.

[CaptainFritz28]

A) You are the one claiming that God exists and that the Bible is His infallible word. The burden of proof is on you.

B) For the 27th time this month, ATHEISM IS NOT A MORAL STANDARD NOR DOES IT ATTEMPT TO BE. Your repetition of this false argument against atheism as a system of morality, despite multiple reminders that this argument is invalid and irrelevant, is now becoming very annoying.

A) This is a claim that has been made by you various times, all unsupported. I've at least given support for mine, whether you believe it or not. I would like to see some proof from your end.

B) Well, then, explain to us morality. Atheism doesn't give a framework, doesn't claim to, doesn't try to. Sure, that's great. What does, then? Empathy. OK. And what gives empathy morality? A want to make people happy and not harm people. OK. And what makes that moral? At some point it comes back around to your worldview, being Atheism. Inherently, your morals are derived from how you view the universe. Your view stipulates that there is no provider of ultimate moral truth, which would be a god. Thus, Atheism only provides that when it comes to it, your morals are based on yourself.

A) What claim, precisely, are you asking me to provide proof for?

B) Morality is what society, as a collective, perceives it to be. Absent of a book of instructions from a mythical sky daddy, how else are we to arrive at a moral standpoint? We must look within and around ourselves. Are my morals based on myself? To some degree, yes, as they are partly a product of my thought process over many years of living, self reflection, and discussion. They are also based on the moral positions, and the actions, of others around me, as I perceive them. They are based on the history of our society and the social norms and contracts that have accompanied the progress of our society over generations.

I am happy to conceive that if I believed firmly that God existed, and that He was benevolent, and loved us all, and wanted good things to happen to good people, then I would happily accept a moral code based on the pronouncements of God and the example of Jesus. However, I don't believe in God. This is not a choice on my part. It is my position that I am incapable of conceiving in God. Belief in God is not in my nature.

A) The claim that:
"Your standard is founded on make-believe."

B) Just to be clear, you are saying that what the collective of society decides is what morality is?
Therefore, if someone disagrees with this collective, they are doing something immoral?
Two questions, then:
1) What happens when two societies disagree?
2) Back to an earlier question that I gave, when slavery was something that the collective decided was fine, then was it moral? Same with women's rights, the oppression of the poor, or anything else that historical societies did that we now find appaling?

Upon hearing that you don't believe it to be in your nature to believe in God, I would assume that you are saying that there is a certain lack of choice we have over our moral conclusions, which lack of choice is determined by Evolution?
In that case, I might argue that I am incapable of not believing in God, in which case we have reached an impasse. To have this debate properly, we would have to go into great detail, as this is reaching into the fundamentals of what each of us believes about human nature. Seeing that neither of us is likely to be convinced about such beliefs on a forum thread, I feel that for both our sakes it would be best to end the debate somewhat around this point. I'm sure you'll want to respond to my points here, so do so, and then, at least for this thread, I'll call my part in this over. I'll keep going in the other one until it also reaches its natural end.
It was a pleasure to debate you, Jamie. I appreciate the responses, and I apologize for any insults I may have given you over the course of this debate. Sometimes I can be a bit rash with my choice of words if I respond too quickly, and I'm sure that happened more than once here. Merry Christmas.