Who cares what someone said on marriage 200 years ago
The moral principles are held to still stand today, just as you might still read something by a scientist like Newton on physics from some time ago, which may have some validity; moral principles like that it is “wrong to steal” are still as true today as thousands of years ago, just as the formula for the area of a circle hasn’t changed throughout the centuries
Far far better places to go for morality than christianity
Such as? Don’t the non-religious have no basis for morality?
Very old arguement that has no merit. We have morality because we don’t need some magic person in the sky or a 2000 year old out of date textbook to tell us what is right from wrong. Nothing about current Christianity is moral and an atheist can be trusted to do the right thing far better than a Christian. This is constantly proven on a day by day basis with how riddled Christianity is with pedophilia and the rise of Christian nationalism that is entwined with white supremacy.
Very old arguement that has no merit
It seems to have merit though: if there is no moral code, a person can choose as their moral code abusive supremacy
The fact you focused on that part and not the rest of my arguement proves my whole point. You ignored the very reasons why Christianity and other religions aren’t intrinsically moral. Besides, there’s nothing about Christianity that comes directly from God. The gospels were all written by man after the death of Jesus up to hundreds of years after him and have been censored and changed thousands of times over the years for different individuals benefits. Hell it was altered in the 20th century from saying pedophilia was bad to paint homosexuals as bad for very obvious reasons. Literally Christianity and many other similar religions are just tools at this point used to control others. As a species we have outgrown them, but those in control don’t like giving it up or losing their misplaced sense of moral superiority.
One doesn’t need rules to be handed down from an authority to be moral.
In fact, accepting the morality handed to you is amoral. You have it exactly backwards; Catholicism is abusive supremacy as one can tell by looking at the times in history when they had carte blanche to impose their rules on everyone in Europe.
There’s no humanist who proposes burning witches at the stake, but how many thousands have been murdered at the hands of Catholic supremacists?
One doesn’t need rules to be handed down from an authority to be moral.
How would this process go? I decide one thing is moral, you decide another thing is moral which is different; it doesn’t seem possible for the two to work out. Say one person believes abortion is immoral, another decides it is moral: how is this conflict resolved, in your view?
There’s no humanist who proposes burning witches at the stake, but how many thousands have been murdered at the hands of Catholic supremacists?
There hasn’t been agreement on if capital punishment should be the punishment for certain crimes or not, but the authority to decide has been accepted as being allowed. The person who spreads heresy was thought to be perhaps worse than one who takes life, as they threaten damage that doesn’t end. Consider the danger of “misinformation” today: say a person said that eating any dirt might be healthy, and this led to much illness. This is the problem of “heresy”: hence, some considered this to be like taking lives, and that it should be punished as such. Others argued for toleration and combating false teaching with simply discussing the truth.
There have been atheists that have caused much death, like the Communist movements in the 20th century (Communism aims to create a society free of religion).
