So if the Theist claims that if an alternate atheist moral code doesn’t progress morally, it only changes because there is no basis(such as the bible), but a theistic moral code actual makes progress. Than both the atheist and the theist agree that both moral codes change. The problem is who decides how the theist’s moral code should proceed? Did God call down and tell us to abolish slavery before the Civil War or was it we humans who made that decision?

Either that doesn’t make any sense to anyone or I’m the only one here.

I don’t think God told anybody to abolish slavery.

Ron, you may try posting in the general section because usually only members local to the area read and post in these geographical sub-forums.

I’m not sure of the point you’re trying to make, but to start with:  I don’t care what a theist claims and I’m not interested in using it as as starting premise.  I don’t see that either all atheists or all theists agree that moral codes change.  And religious documents contain a great many conflicting statements so theists can jump from one to another as they change their actions, thus being able to still claim it’s god’s word.

Occam

“Ron, you may try posting in the general section because usually only members local to the area read and post in these geographical sub-forums.

I’m not sure of the point you’re trying to make, but to start with:  I don’t care what a theist claims and I’m not interested in using it as as starting premise.  I don’t see that either all atheists or all theists agree that moral codes change.  And religious documents contain a great many conflicting statements so theists can jump from one to another as they change their actions, thus being able to still claim it’s god’s word.

Occam”

Thanks for the tip on posting in different forums.  The point I’m trying to make. ok.  We have to talk to theists they are everywhere.  What am I going to do? Hate them? Can’t hate them.  Moral codes change because there are teachings in the bible that no one uses anymore.  And there’s a good reason we don’t use them anymore.  If someone is trying to argue that moral progress isn’t made.  Then refer them to William Lane Craig.  Even he will agree that moral progress occurs.  But what he argues is that the moral principals of an atheist don’t progress they only change.  Then i’ll repeat what I said earlier.  The bible doesn’t condone slavery.  So who decided that we should abolish slavery in America?  Did god call down and tell us to contradict the bible?  You get my point now?  I know you care about this because you are here trying to make a difference.  We have to care about what theists think because it’s not their fault they were raised to believe in god.

Wow, R-P, you really jumped from idea to idea.  In no particular order:  !. The bible DOES condone slavery.  I don’t believe any of the three Abrahamic religions specifically rejected slavery.  I think it came from the emerging concepts of a) We are all humans, b) Slavery is economically inefficient.  2. Just because W.L. Craig says morality doesn’t progress among atheists doesn’t make it so.  Besides, atheism is merely a rejection of the existence of a god- it has nothing to do with the person’s moral structure or philosophy.  The question to be examined is possibly whether morality has progressed among humanists. 

Occam

I see the problem here, I used the word ‘condone’ when what I meant to say was ‘condemn’  That’s funny.  If you read my point again with that simple word swap, it makes much more sense.  I know just because W.L. Craig says that an atheist moral code doesn’t progress that it actually doesn’t.  You just pointed out to me something I was trying to point out to you earlier, but you didn’t get the point.  I’ll try it again switching that one word.

Then i’ll repeat what I said earlier.  The bible doesn’t condemn slavery.  So who decided that we should abolish slavery in America?  Did god call down and tell us to contradict the bible?  You get my point now?  I know you care about this because you are here trying to make a difference.  We have to care about what theists think because it’s not their fault they were raised to believe in god.

This is a coherent stream of logic. I’m trying to explain the point I was making in the first post.  Are you deliberately trying to not get the point I was making?

No, I’m not deliberately trying to not get your point, but your writing style is confusing to me. 

From your first post you appear to be making a critical thinking error.  The bible is a compilation of stories written by the priests in small communities millenia ago that were designed to impose moral rules on the members there.  Saying they were the word of god was a good way of giving them more force.  However, god does not exist so it’s a waste of time asking your final question that has implicit in it that a god does exist.

If you are trying to use this as an argument against the existence of a god, that’s fine, but you’re “preaching to the choir.”

Occam

Awesome, good to know I not the only person.  Yes, I was ambiguously proposing this as an argument to offer our friends who believe in God.  I put it on facebook and they all jumped in with an opinion and didn’t seem offended in anyway.  I appreciate you taking the time   I’ve been any atheist my whole life, but I’ve only recently decided to become more vocal about it.

Mr. Moderator is probably half my age, I’m guessing.  “How’s this approach?” What does that mean?  Why would I approach a non-theist and argue to the non-existence of God?  No one does that.  Obviously it means I’m trying to have adult conversations with theists about God.  Try to grasp the obvious next time.  I feel like you antagonize people on your forums so you can have less work to do as they don’t post here anymore.