@OP by Jordan

So by professing God has abandoned people, is homophobic or likes slaves you claim to know these things are bad, but says who? What’s bad and good?

Oh you think that way? Cool, I will enslave you into hard labor at gunpoint, and you will be okay with that because "what's bad and good?"
 
 

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
▮Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
▮Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

Undoubtedly if there is a god, it most certainly is an evil god. If I had to pick a religion, I'd pick the Cathar heresy. For them the God of the Bible was literally Satan. God was evil, and so was the material world. The one true good God existed beyond this world and beyond our comprehension. The god of the Bible was basically Plato's Demiurge, who wanted to create the perfect world of ideas, but because the Demiurge was not perfect, it could not create perfection. Makes A LOT more sense than the run-of-the-mill Christian dogma.

Anyway, you are right. There exists no morality in nature. Morality is a relational property. We have it in order to form coalitions with other homo sapiens. Morality is mostly about emotions first, and rationality second. Curiously our capability for symbolism and analogy extends it beyond human relations. If we had evolved out of lions instead of social hominids, our views on morality would be totally different.

Oh Jordan. I’ll tell you why I don’t masturbate to porn on the net.

Do you want to know why?

Guilt.

Guilt is a feeling that helps us learn from our mistakes; so not as to repeat them.

The US and A felt guilty about slavery a few years back and the north decided it was wrong. A whole civil war was fought to free black people from slavery to the white man of the south.

It is based on guilt that we strive for higher morals.

Does your God feel guilt?

Oh look, another supernaturalist purports to be in a position to lecture us on the conduct of discourse. this is going to be good.

Let's take a look at this shall we?

Stop bringing up the fact that you don’t think There is a God becasue [sic] of the evil that exists in the world or that God is cruel, oppressive and vengeful.

Well here's your first error. Namely, thinking that being an atheist means asserting that a god type entity doesn't exist. It doesn't. That's because atheism, in its rigorous formulation, is nothing more than suspicion of unsupported supernaturalist assertions. That is IT. It simply means we don't accept uncritically assertions by supernaturalists, that their favourite mythologies are anything other than mythologies.

However, whilst regarding the question of the existence of a god type entity in its most general form as an unanswered question, what we do reject, is the idea that mythological assertions purportedly constitute fact, and as a corollary, we regard the fatuous and absurd candidates for the 'god role' presented in those mythologies as null and void. no least because those mythologies demonstrate the incompetence of their authors repeatedly, by presenting assertions about the universe and its contents that are not merely wrong in the light of modern scientific knowledge, but fatuous and absurd in that light. Any genuine fantastically gifted entity purportedly responsible for the requisite text, would not allow discoverable crass errors to feature in that text.

Indeed, you'll find, if you exercise a certain level of diligence, that I've already posted here some musings on this matter that should prove enlightening here.

If you do not believe in God, then you should have no opinion on his character.

Poppycock.

First, an elementary concept you manifestly neglected to understand with your above assertion, is that it is perfectly apposite to subject the nature of an asserted entity to scrutiny, as a matter of proper discourse, not least because most of us would like to know what sort of entity we are dealing with, if it transpires that assertions about the existence thereof are actually true. Would you not want to be informed beforehand about this?

Second, when supernaturalist assertions about their pet magic men, lead said supernaturalists to engage in abuse of discourse, or conniving to force policy making, education and the fabric of civil society to conform to those assertions, then the nature of said pet magic men is entirely apposite to discuss, especially if we have evidence that supernaturalist assertions in this vein are wrong. This becomes particularly apposite whenever supernaturalists peddle the tiresome assertion that we purportedly cannot be "moral" without their pet magic men, or that our ethical thinking depends necessarily upon those pet magic men, regardless of any evidence to the contrary. Evidence such as, for example, assertions in the requisite mythologies that said pet magic men purportedly ordered acts to be committed, that are presently regarded as crimes against humanity. Numbers 31 provides a particularly odious example from one of those mythologies, and refutes wholesale supernaturalist assertions about the purported "moral perfection" of the requisite magic man.

Indeed, it is precisely because supernaturalists continue to assert that morality is purportedly impossible without their mythological magic men, and that said mythological magic men are purportedly "morally perfect", that refutation of those assertions goes a long way toward rendering said mythological magic men superfluous to requirements and irrelevant. That you do not understand this elementary concept, again speaks volumes about the quality of the apologetics you are peddling here.

Because whether he was good or evil would not determine his existence. God could be evil, so what? Whose to say if there is a God he HAS to be kind?

Try, as I have expounded above, that this is precisely what supernaturalists assert. As a corollary, refuting said assertion impacts upon the existence assertion, because they are the ones tying that existence assertion to the "moral perfection" assertion. This is a particularly prevalent line of apologetics emanating from Opus Dei neo-Thomists, though they're not the only ones peddling this line: it also appears from time to time in certain strands of Protestant presuppositionalism.

Furthermore, if we are just a product of random and natural unguided processes, then there is most likely no such thing as objective moral values outside of our own perception and what one might consider “evil” another might consider moral.

Oh, not this canard again ...

What part of "ethical precepts are judged on the basis of observable harm or benefit disseminated thereby" do you not understand? Indeed, as I cover at length in this post, an exposition of the scientific literature covering the evolutionary and biological basis of our capacity for ethical thought and the motivation to act thereupon, it's noteworthy that the principle of reciprocity not only pre-dates every human religion ever invented, but is observed to be in action in non-human organisms.

In short, all the actual data on the subject points to ethical decisions being a matter of empirical test.

So by professing God has abandoned people, is homophobic or likes slaves you claim to know these things are bad, but says who?

Not "who", but what. Namely, the observational data to the effect that harm is disseminated to the recipients of the requisite actions.

What’s bad and good? After all we are supposedly just evolved bacteria whoseonly objective is surviving.

I refer you to that large body of scientific literature I covered in the post I linked above.

Moving on ...

Who’s to say? What makes your morals right and mine bad? Where’s your proof that slavery and murder are wrong?

Not "proof", as this is the remit of formal axiomatic systems, not empirical observables. The evidence that these are wrong, is the observable harm endured by the victims thereof (or in the case of the murdered, their surviving relatives).

Here's a tip for you. Don't post apologetic fabrications that will be torn apart with ease by anyone who has paid attention in class, and don't purport to be in a position to lecture those of us who paid in class if you never bothered to do so yourself.