That has nothing to do with the argument you made above. It was just a straight up circular argument. Again, it may work for you, but it doesn’t have any force logically.
That particular struggle, I blissfully avoid 
Perhaps!
Some, but I’d guess they’re outliers, as are sociopaths in general.
Toward the topic at hand… Christianity was always anti-gay.
As for a believable and convincing morality just look at Nietzsche’s will toward power. Its the only moral theory that is explainable through evolution and psychology hence it is the only natural morality. Moral systems such as Christianity and Judaism are built with the idea of creating sheep, slaves to their conscience and prevailing customs. You will become much more free when you realize that your only moral obligation is to pursue power in your life.
Whats with the kids glove saying it may work for me? I mean if my statement is logically false, I’d want to think about it more haha. I think sometimes my philosophies may seem arrogant in that i’m saying I’m right and you’re wrong. But it’s more like I think I’m absolutely right, or I am also acknowledging I leave myself to be absolutely wrong. I’m not looking for a nice kum bye ya everyone is right and gets a trophy tolerant is good award. I want some damn answers!!!
My personal view is that the “interpretation” and references to homosexuality in the Bible , would appear to be anti-gay. You can, of course alter the interpretation to suit your agenda but the words , as written , are clear enough. That may not be the view of Jesus, necessarily, but some of the Bible would seem to be at odds with His philosophy ?
The question is subjective, therefore, with no possible clear answer.
Discobot : Fixed 
like power as in political, financial, and other means of getting what I want?
Power over yourself if you so choose.
That’s not really the point. An argument is either valid logically or it isn’t. You said, “if morality exists, maybe something meaningful exists that makes morality meaningful.” You might be right that something meaningful exists that makes morality meaningful, but your argument hasn’t done anything to show that it’s true. I could answer you simply by saying “morality is meaningful in its own right” and you could say the same. It’s not going to get us anywhere.
Yeah I’m at a headache thinkin of a different way to premise the arguement. I can’t use either the premise of God exist or morality (at least objective morality) exists in this argument without assuming the other is true. But the headache is still that I can’t prove god doesn’t exist or that morality doesn’t exist either
Yeah it seems hard to prove that an objective morality exists if you can’t prove the source exists. Yet, some people find it an essential concept, and don’t see how they can do without it. For people who don’t believe, the insistence that morality has to have an objective source is equally troubling. In the end, I don’t think it does anyone much good to quibble about it. What’s important is what morality actually means, regardless of its ultimate source 
I mean the guy made a career of hunting Christians and executing them in fashions that would be trialed as crimes against humanity today, and did so by many accounts with joy. I would imagine he was not going to be the saintly picture the church paints him to be. But the knock against Paul is also seen as why he was also so influential and important to Christianity. One the most notorious persecutors of Christianity of the day later becoming one of the biggest apologist? That would be a big deal. It’s interesting to see that Christianity was spread by people that probably were not viewed as people of high standing.
It’s hard to believe that in the 21st century so many people are still relying on leaps of faith and magical thinking about “God.” We already know how life was created. The same patch of ocean water was repeatedly struck by lightening over billions of years until one day life was created. In a world ruled by entropy, that life spontaneously evolved into ever more complicated forms until one day intelligence and self-awareness were created, one of which was Albert Einstein.
And there you have it. No leaps of faith or magical thinking about the origin of life. Nothing but hard, repeatable scientific fact.
I think that’s a bit of an unfair caricature. But yeah, there are a few gaps in the narrative that need a fairly large leap of faith to get over.
Well yeah. Let’s just say he’d have a somewhat unique slant on life that might not accord with everyman’s experience. So I reckon his writings can be taken for what they are: the musings of a flawed man who’s got a lot to compensate for. That doesn’t necessarily mean he was “wrong”, but he was still an just ordinary human being, looking for his own solutions.
No, we have theories. We don’t know.
Actually it does take a leap of faith. We’ve never been able to repeat how life was started. The one you mentioned is just one of many plausible theories. Some might be better than others sure. But you’re asking the wrong question. It isn’t how life got started that leave people pondering at night. It’s why?
So say we all
What part did I get wrong?
um … OK, tbh it’s close enough
Exactly. I’ve noticed atheists mostly work around this by simply ignoring the question: “I don’t care why”, or “there’s no why, it just is”. There’s also the more sophisticated:
“Why are we here?”
“Where else would we be?”
The implication being that we find ourselves in a universe containing intelligent life because this is the universe in which intelligent life arose. But it still basically avoids the “why”.
and one of whom was Miles Davis, your point being?
This ignores the fact that it’s an essentially closed system receiving constant and massive inputs of energy from the Sun.
For me, it’s “I don’t know why”. Some questions, I expect people will be able to gain more insight into over time, such as how life started. I read the other day all animal life descended from a sponge. Who would have believed that not so long ago? Other questions look rather more insoluble, such as, why is anything here at all?
I believe that there are forces in the universe beyond our understanding, and they may well always remain that way. It’s one thing to believe that has some insight into what those forces are. But suggestions that our fundamental state of ignorance demands the existence of one’s preferred “God” concept or archetype, and render disbelief unreasonable, don’t add up.
Try these.
A: Climate change is caused by humans releasing too much carbon. 
B: No it isn’t. It’s solar radiation and other things beyond human control. 
A: Well, I’m going to do the right thing by reducing my carbon footprint, which means reducing my consumption (of electricity and stuff in general), thus saving the planet. 
And btw you’re a horrible, science-hating denialist.
B: Well, I’m going to do the right thing by consuming as much as I damn well please. You’re an airy-fairy, rainbow-loving, unicorn-believing, naive little sheeple type. 
If A is right about carbon, A is also right (keeping it simple for argument’s sake) about reducing consumption. 
And B will of course wipe out the polar bears and probably destroy the planet too. 
If B is right about carbon, B is also right about consumption, or so it may seem. 
However, even if B is right about carbon, there are still the issues of air pollution 
ground pollution water pollution (plastic particles) etc. Therefore A’s position turns out to be better.
A: God will judge us after we die. 
B: No He/She/It won’t. That’s just hocus-pocus. 
A: Well, I’m going to do the right thing by not committing mass murder because it’s a sin.
B: Well, I’m going to do the right thing by committing mass murder because it gives me pleasure, and that’s the whole point of life. You’re airy-fairy etc. etc.
If A is correct about the afterlife, A is also correct about mass murder (again keeping it simple). And B will of course burn in hell for eternity.
If B is correct about the afterlife, B is also correct about mass murder, or so it may seem.
However, even if B is correct about the afterlife, B still needs to live with the consequences of his/her actions in this life. 
Therefore A’s position turns out to be better.
Replace mass murder with whatever immoral or allegedly immoral activity you like: smoking, drinking, fornication, homosexuality, spreading hatred of minorities, laziness, exercise (vanity), eating saturated fat, eating trans fat, reading Forumosa, etc… or abstaining from any of these (as moral standards – and scientific standards – keep changing).
One way or another, you will face consequences, positive and/or negative. Simply judging on the basis of “this gives me pleasure in the short term ergo I should do it” is, well… of limited use in the long term. 
So what? Provision of an energy source, in and of itself, will not automatically result in a local decrease in entropy. Imagine heating a sealed box of gas. The entropy of the system increases.
This sounds like a joke from The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.
It doesn’t demand it. But it leaves the possibility open (along with a few other possibilities).