I like to counter with the fact that being "good" because you fear hell or divine retribution,
is NOT being "moral", it's submitting to blackmail, and it's hedging your bets.
If you do good because you want to get into heaven and please god, you're being a
mercenary.

Being a moral human being has nothing to do with religion.
Being a moral human being means being honest, and treating others with dignity and
respect, simply because those are the right things to do.

It's always helpful to use their "holy" books against them. Most of them don't know most of
what's in it, or the histories of their religions.

Ken, a 66-year-old psychologist from Portland, Oregon. His first message:

"I really like your playful, creative, giving being. You're more "spiritual" than most religious people. I'm curious how an "atheist" can live that way."

As a lifelong atheist, I don't need religion to tell me to be kind, honest and respectful. At age four, I realized when I was nice to people, they were nice to me.

At age 10, I watched President John F. Kennedy's inauguration ceremony on TV. When he said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country," his words hit me in the center of my chest. Yes.

I get the greatest satisfaction from doing work that helps other people. I'm a Democrat, environmentalist and feminist.

Since 2006 as a volunteer, I have been helping low income, first generation students write essays for college entry and scholarships. One of my best success stories is Brenda, who won $269,445 in scholarships in 2016.

Photo:

In June 2018, I took three young women I previously mentored on a hike around Icicle Gorge, WA.

From left: Tammy, a Vietnamese immigrant, is studying to be a neurologist surgeon at Univ. of Washington. Me. Brenda, a Mexican-American, is becoming a pediatrician. Teresa, a Mexican-American, is an accountant and Latino community program director.

In 2020, Teresa and her brother, both accountants, bought their parents their first house.

"This is demonstrated by the fact that Jewish people died against their will"
Do you think?

It could be said that some criminals often believe they are behaving morally, Hitler being a case in point, they just believe that the worlds morality is wrong, and theirs is right. I just posted this as a comment on another post but I think it works here too.

"Moral leadership passed from the traditional theist religions, to a number of modern religions, like 'human rights', the political UN and the global moral consensus long ago. Which leaves the traditional churches without a real role in moral leadership. To keep alive, they therefore have to hover between, being dragged out of their outmoded traditional moral teachings, to keep some degree of relevance in the wider world, or alternatively clinging to their old moral codes and even moving backwards, to attract and maintain membership by offering an alternative to mainstream morality, which will of course give them appeal to people, who the greater majority of people will regard as at least moral, and probably, real criminals.

The increasing trend for religion to become the voice of crime, such as fascism, sexism and ultra-nationalism, is not only hypothetical, but observable, and given that people are unlikely now to abandon belief in things like human rights, religions future role as the leadership of organized crime is destined to last and deepen."

Unfortunately won't work with delusional people

Arguing with a christian about what is "moral" is like trying to argue with your dog whether it will rain tomorrow or not, and usually reaches the same level of non-accomplishment.
.
If you want to argue with a christian, there are two things you have to remember:

1. They do not care what you say, unless it is in their illogical holey book.

2. When you do engage in a serious argument that is going to trip them up, the very first thing they will try to do is tangentialize the argument into another subject, instead of debating on what was at hand, because once they get you off of it, they are leading you around, and not vice versa. You have to hold them to the original argument and call them out when they try to change the subject.

If you want to be effective arguing with them, you have to remember #1 and #2 above, and, knowing their book of bullshit helps a lot . . . . because they have a lot of problems when they start hearing things like these . . . [infidels.org]

Without exception, you will eventually run into one who has no idea WHAT logic is, and that leads back to the comment about arguing with your dog about whether it will rain tomorrow or not.

I wouldnt even bother. You are literally having a debate based on knowledge with someone who has the intellectual equivalent of making cave paintings.

Debating a Christian (or pretty much any religious person) is an exercise in futility. They believe because of faith, not reason. In nearly every case, unless their faith is wavering and they are seeking truth (as science defines it) you are wasting your time.

Morality is instinctive. It is inborn and self regulating, like sexuality. Moral codes are not inscribed on stone or papyrus, but upon the pulsating human heart.

We humans don't possess a monopoly on morality and don't, in our current pathogenic societies, exemplify it as well as many of our animal cousin species. Honesty, fidelity, bonded love, selfless sacrifice and many other examples are set by creatures that have never set paws in a synagogue, mosque or church.

To consider religion as a source for acquired moral principles is high comedy at best and sheer, imposed ignorance at worst. Religions block and substitute natural drives and instincts, causing suffering humanity to seek out substitutes for what is denied by false moral codes. It is why we live in a world that values artifice over reality and explains the roots of addiction.

One can never get enough of a substitute to fill a void reserved for what is real.

exercise in futility

I think your issue is that you're arguing whether the Bible is parroting secular morality, when it obviously is parroting as all the moral concepts in the Bible existed PRIOR to the bible. No other argument is necessary as there's nothing original in the book. I would also note that all the things you claim to be obviously immoral are somehow justified in the Bible, from rape to genocide, the god and people of the Bible tried it all, so it can hardly be held up as some kind of moral guide.

What is "moral improvement"? I don't believe morality "improves", morality "changes" depending on the social dynamics in which they are decided upon by the local population. Slavery was "moral" in the southern states of the United States at one time and was not moral in other parts of the country. The relative morality of slavery was based on the local population, not some process of improvement in humanity in general.

I don't agree with your assumption that Hitler knew he was acting immorally (although he probably knew the general non-German population of the world might have suspected it). I don't believe he thought he was doing anything wrong at all, everyone else was simply wrong. All religious tomes justify killing off whole nations (i.e. genocide) as something "gods" had no problem with. Hitler's religious background, and with the Pope his side, he would have easily justified his actions as moral just as the KKK justify their actions as Christian and thus moral based on their reading of the Bible and pastors telling them they are doing the work of god.

Almost all belief systems have the same basic tenets, do good and you will be rewarded, do evil and you will be punished. Christianity is very late to the game is an amalgam of earlier faiths. To paraphrase Ecclisasties Vanity of vanities there is nothing new under the sun. Morality was here before religion perverted it and will be here long after religions have ceased to exist.

Look, there's an innate morality and it's not something that's learned.
You can learn about other people, relate to them, then you'll gain empathy.
Empathy is just your social hard wiring working, just as it does in a pack of wolves.
They don't kill the omega wolf because someone knows they'll have to take it's place in the social hierarchy. Humans assume there just has to be a loser even children on a playground.
Morality is a silly word akin to sin and salvation.
If it performs any function at all it's exclusively poetic.

Do you think that Donald thinks he is doing wrong?

Too long and contrived for a debate, audience will tune out: eliminate the lols which don't help make a point, suggestion, look at some videos on the subject by hitchens, short and sweet, to the point concisely is key to win debates.

The Golden Rule is not unique to Xianity!

. . . a very good read (about the 'evolution' of morality) :

[goodreads.com]

Morality is basically what's objectively required to achieve a certain aim. The aim of Christian morality is usually to get right with God for whatever reason. The aim of secular morality (which Christans often at least partially accept), is to create functioning societies, thriving economies, and safe environments, which is an aim that is common to the majority of humans, and serves as the basis of conventional morality throughout history. This aim typically requires the prohibition of things that violate human consent such as murder, theft, and rape, and the promotion of things that are charitable to human wellbeing, such as giving to the needy and caring for the sick, and the minority of the population that finds this aim to be irrelevant are typically labeled as deviants and criminals by the rest of society. Our moral evolution is typically a result of a combination of further knowledge, and civilizational expansion which requires greater inclusion. To give a good example of the knowledge part, our condemnation of homosexuality was largely based off of the false belief that homosexuality was detrimental to society, a claim later proven to be absurd. For the inclusion part, as we began to expand into other territories, we started to have to figure out how to share the world with other tribes and civilizations. We ultimately decided that inclusion, trade, and peace was better than war.

Hitler despised those humans of jewish decent. Hitler felt it best to eradicate a religious group that did not support his god hence clearing the future for a more docile world most likely to submit to his dictatorship. Hitler was cut short due to the force of humanity. Now Trump has plans to disigrate the new evil; the middle class. To many disruptions and fake news. This will open his gate and carry on Hitlers plan of dictatorship. Trump has organized a pandemic to create fear and destroy hundreds of thousands people world wide. He has also created his army to destroy protesters as he plans to shred democracy. Hate and anger multiplies into greed and destruction. This is an evolution for the most fit psychotic Moran that loves to play genocide. His lake of knowledge is scientific and not immaculate conception. Possibly a game to destroy human kind. The pawns are Trump-Putin and North Korean golden boy, Kim Jun Yun. Too much? Lol?!?!

But we must ask ourselves, whose well-being?

On the one hand, Hitlers carnage of gassing of millions served him and fed his well-being of creating a final ‘final solution’.

On the other hand, mum’s theft to feed starving baby also deprived the owner of the stolen item, whose well-being may have suffered in the process.

That is why I prefer to see wrong-doing, from the side of law, than a moral narrative.

A wrong doing that creates a victim, is against the law.

I sincerely do not accept that we should cite bible as a factual reference point. What is the point of this group, then?

My view

Here's the disconnect. Morality is relative. We look for absolutes and a sort of "universal code" but this has never been true in the bible. The Hebrews wanted good things which came at the expense of others. Why? Because the human species was still socially evolving and our morals then were hugely inferior. That's why trying to copy biblical morality basically keeps people from evolving socially. What Hitler did wasn't wrong in a strictly biblical context, because he did it for his people. When the Hebrews went into Canaan it wasn't like they simply displaced a small group of people. No, their whole plan before going in was to wipe them out. But because they said GOD told them they could have it... even though GOD really should have called ahead and made reservations... then it was okay. Couldn't God have made them fertile land in the desert because he's God? But whatever... the point is that biblical morality isn't universally moral. It's hypocrisy.

The reason Yeshua (Jesus) appeared to be saying new things is because they had always accepted morality and interpreted it very selfishly as applicable to only those they deemed worthy. But if you act like an angel to some and a devil to others then aren't you simply a sometimes nice devil?

The KKK was/is a Christian organization because it is similarly based on the same faulty logic the Hebrews and Hitler used. It's okay if you have enough POWER (=God) to get away with it. Bad guys are almost never the bad guys... to them. While you're blaming them they're blaming a society that didn't treat them fairly or provide enough for them.

The Hebrews, WITH GOD, murdered and raped and robbed and broke all the commandments against... other nations. Because they thought it was different. They thought that if they, as an individual did it to another person in their nation it was wrong and a sin. But if they, as a nation, did it, to another nation, then it was okay. That's hypocrisy. Why is it not okay for 1 person to do what is okay for the many? The reality is that people just don't want it happening TO THEM. So if they had the power (God) then God would fight, destroy, whatever to protect/help them. But why shouldn't the same God (if he created all) protect and help the others? Samson was a mass murderer who I was raised, as a Christian, to look up to. But in reality that was a horrible story that was only justified because they considered the people he killed enemies.

So biblical morality is really just a romantic view of barbaric base human nature. I didn't even get to Moses and his genocide against his own people.

Moral arguments are red herrings. Absent two way communication you have nothing but subjective interpretation of alleged revelations, that stop at the knowledge of people 2000 years ago. None of which are demonstrated universally across history, cultures, or even ChristiAn denominations.