Can atheists actually have morals?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Of course. (To say that nonreligious people can't have morals or that sincerely religious people's morals aren't or shouldn't be connected to their religion are both, I think, spurious.)

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Obvliously not. Whenever I discover I'm in the house of an atheist, I always make sure I have a heavy object within reach and know the fastest way to the nearest exit.

Better safe than sorry, eh?

Nah.  Most safes are too heavy to be good weapons if thou shouldst need smitest thine infidel friends.

I prefer a baseball bat personally.

I just prefer to play audio from the Bible app on my iPhone until their head spontaneously combusts.

Come on now. We atheists have heard fairy stories since we were at our mothers knee. Our heads can deal with it perfectly fine

Oh, really? Have you heard 'The Juniper Tree'? Because that sh**t's bananas.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Obvliously not. Whenever I discover I'm in the house of an atheist, I always make sure I have a heavy object within reach and know the fastest way to the nearest exit.

Better safe than sorry, eh?

Nah.  Most safes are too heavy to be good weapons if thou shouldst need smitest thine infidel friends.

I prefer a baseball bat personally.

I just prefer to play audio from the Bible app on my iPhone until their head spontaneously combusts.

Come on now. We atheists have heard fairy stories since we were at our mothers knee. Our heads can deal with it perfectly fine

Oh, really? Have you heard 'The Juniper Tree'? Because that sh**t's bananas.

I actually love that story. Been a while since I thought about it

It's one of my favorites too.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Non-believers have stronger values than religious people.

I'm not sure how a generalization like this can conceivably follow. From anything.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It's not just a question of 'religious people' (a single, discrete, monolithic class, of course) having weak values. 'Non-believers' (a single, discrete, monolithic class just like 'religious people', of course) have strong, or stronger, values...on what basis, exactly?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It's not just a question of 'religious people' (a single, discrete, monolithic class, of course) having weak values. 'Non-believers' (a single, discrete, monolithic class just like 'religious people', of course) have strong, or stronger, values...on what basis, exactly?

On the basis that they don't base their moral code on a stupid book written centuries ago.

And instead on what? Something that has to be axiomatic, I should think, if it's going to make any sense whatsoever and not turn to an exercise in circular reasoning that is going to either be unutterably tiresome or end up mystical anyway despite one's best efforts. Why are moral axioms that don't happen to be written in a specific type of book 'stronger', inherently or solely on that basis, than ones that do?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It should be obvious that to be moral is to be like jesus is.  Religions made being moral everything other than what jesus is not teaching anyone about the character of Jesus, and how he resolved conflict, and avoided war when people wanted to war against him, and how Jesus loved all even the outcasts of society. The atheist loves what Jesus loves doing what Jesus would do.   The atheist does not like war,  Jesus likewise. What else can  an atheists be? They should therefore acknowledge him as Lord.

This is your first post outside 'Should zoosexuality be legal?'. Ever.