YEC 2

[Januarymadness]

Right I am going to bite. I shouldnt have looked at the facebook but I did.

Mr Ruggles you have made some horrible accusations. You have claimed everyone who disagreed with you was an atheist who lacked logic and reasoning. You were wrong on ALL counts. Many people told you they were Christian or Theists, they just didn't agree with you. The thread was also full of valid scientific arguments which were well worded and full of logic and reasoning.

You have also accused us all of being bullies. Something I saw no evidence of. Not agreeing with someone is not bullying.

So please do feel free to justify your off board comments here as speaking behind peoples backs is really not on.

Please could someone link to the old thread. Thanks

"Best: But if we are measuring by God's standards, we must understand how He sees us - not how we see ourselves. Isaiah 64:6 says all of our good deeds are like filthy rags to God. I meant to ask this yesterday -Could you (or anyone else) please tell me how you interpret that bible quote?"

Sure. This gets a little too theological for my tastes but here goes. Christianity states that we cannot earn our way to God. It is a free gift that we must receive. All other religions have rituals that must be performed in order to be acceptable to God. Christianity is different. As sinners, we can NEVER be acceptable to a righteous and holy God. The wages of sin is death. We can choose to pay for our own sins or let Jesus pay the price for us. Until we are "washed in his blood" God sees us as filthy, wretched sinners. Read the lyrics to the great Hymn Amazing Grace.

"It's interesting that you say about measuring by god's standards- I suppose the word of the bible tells you what god's standards are? It must be quite a job, given that the bible is so contradictory, and that slavery seems to be ok, as does the slaughter of whole towns."

I reject your premise that the Bible is contradictory. I am aware of NO actual contradictions in the Bible - only alleged ones. (But we covered that on the first thread so let's not go down that road again.)

Slavery back then was nothing like the slavery of 200 years ago. It was more like the employer/employee relationship we have today. The worker volunteered and was not forced. Unless you're referring to the kind of slavery that the Jews endured. In that case, God was against it. That's merely recording history so just because it's in the Bible doesn't mean God endorses it.

Regarding the slaughter of whole towns, yes God punishes sin. (We should be glad He does. Otherwise, there is no ultimate justice.) Those people chose not to repent so they paid with their lives. God, the Creator of all things, who gives life has the right to take it away. (He will also give it back again to everyone in the resurrection. Humans do not have the same right to take life that God has just like I'm sure you have some privileges that your small children do not have.

Sieg, I loved your assessment of Hitchens' Decalogue. Gave me a chuckle and I think you are spot on. You're clearly a thinker to be reckoned with.

Pedro, I would just like to say two things about your assessment of the biblical Decalogue.

1. The intent of the 6th commandment, "Thou shalt not kill," is actually "Thou shalt not MURDER." Killing in self-defense is permitted as is capital punishment. It's not "murder" if the person is guilty. (That's why God killing guilty sinners is not wrong.)

I know you didn't mention that but I like to clarify it.

1. The 10 Commandments are there to show us that we cannot live up to God's standard, that we are sinners and need a Saviour. The only person on earth who has ever kept all the commandments perfectly is Jesus. So don't worry the next time you covet neighbour's ass, just repent.

Okay, a third one as an afterthought:

1. Yours was not nearly as funny as Seig's. But good try.

Pedro, regarding choosing your sexuality, on the whole I agree with you but at least one gay person doesn't.:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2090942/Cynthia-Nixon-Im-gay-choice.html

But you could not expect ME (or at least someone from a different culture) to abide by YOUR MORAL code. If you did, you would be acting inconsistently with your worldview.

You've really got to stop telling other people what they're worldview is. And as a matter of fact, I can expect that of you! My morals reflect those of the society I live in, and we all expect others to abide by those morals - that's how we all get along!

I'm clearly not saying people don't have a right to their opinion but if they are going to judge others, I am justified in asking them on what basis they do so. If it is merely their opinion, why should anyone else care? If it is merely the consensus of their culture, why should someone from another culture care?

And why should they care about your opinion of what is "objectively" moral?? Is the right to judge others really at the heart of your "objective" morality argument? Do you want to be able to tell others that what they are doing is wrong, but then avoid any personal responsibility for that judgement? "No, no, I'm not saying you're wrong - it's always wrong for someone to do ."

...if I were an atheist, I would appeal to human evolution for morality.

Well, I would appeal to evolution for my sense of empathy, which in turn informs my sense of morality. But that's just me. Perhaps you'd like to tell me that I do something else...??

And you have no problem with that (or shouldn't), right? What possible right could people in the 21st century have to judge people of a different culture two millennia before?

Of course I have a problem with that! You just said I have morals, didn't you? I can, however, acknowledge that the people of ancient Sparta (and other places) didn't see it the same way that I do!

Slavery back then was nothing like the slavery of 200 years ago. It was more like the employer/employee relationship we have today. The worker volunteered and was not forced. Unless you're referring to the kind of slavery that the Jews endured. In that case, God was against it. That's merely recording history so just because it's in the Bible doesn't mean God endorses it.

Oh no, not this garbage again!!! Are you kidding me? Or yourself??

Leviticus 25:44-46

King James Version (KJV)

44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.

Just who the hell have you been working for, anyway??? You sir, need to find another job! In case you missed it, that's treating human beings as possessions, and they're children, in perpetuity. Ever so slightly different from the indentured servitude you were talking about! And God was against it, was he? Hmmm, mind telling me where in the bible that bit is? It's conspicuously absent from the commandments... I guess "Thou shalt not own another human being as property" didn't make the cut... (to be fair, he only had 2 tablets - and the technology was very primitive at the time...)

OK. Where was I?

I'm not a fan of Ray Comfort but the banana thing was clearly a parody that atheists have taken out of context

You're not a fan of Ray? I love Ray. He's a complete pillock, but a well meaning one. There's no quote mining here (aside from the fact that I didn't actually quote or even name him) - he made a mistake and admitted it with good humour. Take a leaf out of his book, why don't you?

The Teleological Argument can take many forms and I simply find the fine-tuning the most interesting because a lot of people aren't aware of it

I am, so let's discuss it. Please tell me exactly why you think the universe is "fine-tuned", including what you mean by "fine-tuning" and what constants you're actually referring to. Oh - and can you stop confusing it with the Anthropic Principle. It's not the same thing at all - one is philosophy, the other physics.

Close but not quite. They say it has the appearance of design but that that design is an illusion. Dawkins' actual words were, "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." I think we actually agree here and the difference is one of semantics so let's not get hung up on technicalities

Well, alright so we agree. Wonderful. Abandon this argument completely then - because something that APPEARS designed because of an ILLUSION of design does not actually need a designer.

But that is only likely if there is a multi-verse which is itself highly unlikely and would still require a beginning. So it doesn't remove the need for a Beginner

The multi-verse - again! It's not relevant AT all to any point in the discussion we are having. None. If and when it starts to have relevance, I'll be happy to discuss it.

And, on what basis, are you concluding that anything "requires a beginning"? Show your workings on this one please because this seems like an assumption, not the end of a logically consistent argument.

I think we all intuitively know that it is objectively wrong to torture babies for fun - whether we admit it or not

My sense of morality tells me that torturing babies (for ANY reason) is wrong and I'm aware that this is an almost universal sense that I share with my fellow man. It doesn't have to be "objective" in order to be damn obvious to just about everyone except psychopaths.

Why save the baby at all? Because I'm not a scumbag. Your god, incidentally, lets babies starve to death every day. If I am in a position to do something to prevent that, I will. I am infinitely more moral than your god - and so, thankfully, are you.

Given your worldview, if I chose to let the baby die you would think I committed a grave injustice and deserved punishment

I would - you could have helped a baby and chose not to. You would at least be a logically consistent Christian following the example of Yahweh and allowing needless and unnecessary suffering for no good reason - and I would despise you for it. I don't despise Yahweh since he doesn't exist, but I would despise you.

I don't believe for one second that you are the kind of person who would let that baby die. As I said, you (and most Christians) are considerably better than the monster you claim to worship.

But if you are a logically consistent atheist, I hope you would admit that I have done nothing wrong by letting the baby starve to death

Nothing "objectively" wrong, possibly - but certainly very, very morally wrong.

Morality is not a hard thing to figure out. "Tell you what, Best - if we just agree not to murder each other or take each other's things, then we both stand the very best chance of a long and happy life. Deal?"

There. Job done.

Could our civilization possibly have thrived, could we still be here without a strong and consistent sense of morality? I very, very much doubt it. Thus we have a bloody good reason, do we not, to have developed it as we evolved.

Slavery back then was nothing like the slavery of 200 years ago. It was more like the employer/employee relationship we have today

Oh, really? My employers don't own my son - and neither do they have a set of instructions on how & where to brand me, and under what circumstances they may kill me.

I'm hoping, anyway.

It's kind of an odd thing for Harris to say because in the atheist's worldview, evil and good do not exist. The concepts are meaningless.

It's not odd at all because Harris is using the concepts of the religious to demonstrate why god is a fallacy of thinking. You can't dismiss what he says because you suggest he doesn't believe it. That's a circular argument. Like saying "Harris doesn't believe in God, therefore Harris cannot present an argument against god". What a ridiculous standpoint.

I agree. Christians don't do good things out of hope of reward or fear of retribution. They do good things because they believe they are RIGHT thing to do. This is a straw man invented by (I believe) Hitchens. If someone has an earlier source for this argument, please correct me.

Really? Your overuse of the phrase straw man to just throw out arguments is quite astonishing. No, Hitchens didn't invent this, it's in the bible. It's in the 10 commandments. Do what I say or you will be judged. I'm surprised you haven't read this bit of the bible.... Most Christians find it to be quite an important bit. Especially when they realise that drawing pictures of fish is a sin. Guess will have to bin all those bumper stickers.

Occams Razor. I said your starting presumptions were in clear breach of this. You said... I dont use it for that I use it to support for to support a single God. That is contradictory, and in your terms, illogical.

Slavery back then was nothing like the slavery of 200 years ago. It was more like the employer/employee relationship we have today. The worker volunteered and was not forced.

I don't know which bible you are reading, but people were bought & sold and then become property which would be inherited by their master's children.

That justification sounds like the sort of excuse the slave owners of the southern states tried to make and I'm astounded to hear it. In fact they tried to use the bible to show that slavery was a good thing. After all if god did it..

it is true that Hebrew slaves were to be treated differently.

If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master.

No choice there for the wife and children.

My Theological argument:

We all agree that the bible itself wasn't actually written by God. It was written by people. Some say it was inspired by God.

The documents the bible was constructed from were written at a time when litteracy was not high on the agenda.

The documents were not written in plain text and need a degree of interpretation.

Despite best attempts people are fallible and led by inevitable internal bias.

Even if this bias, translation, littereacy failures, and interprative errors only led to minor differences to what God intended we cannot take every passage of the bible as truth.

We are left with looking at general principle. Several minor changes could have the affect of changing even general principles. Therefore the bible cannot be relied upon at all.

So, without any religious document to rely on I am left with the dilema "do I still feel and accept the principle of one or more deities". I do. I have my reasons, but I do. I am therefore a Theist. I am a Theist who believes everyone has the right to follow their own mind and have their own faith structure. I am therefore a liberal Theist.

I am a Theist who thinks God gave us intellegence and questioning minds, not so he can continually test us, but so we can look at the universe, learn from each other and see a bloody amazing job very well done. Science is amazing and beautiful and wonderful. To look at it all as a test is disrespectful in my opinion.

cant believe Best is trying to sugar coat slavery.

"cant believe Best is trying to sugar coat slavery."

I'm not sugarcoating anything. Realize that, to an atheist, slavery is not objectively wrong any way, so it's really quite humorous when an atheist talks about ANYTHING being wrong. And recall that those who spoke out loudest and put an end to slavery were all Christians. Atheists who oppose slavery do so typically because they were raised in a Christian society.

"You've really got to stop telling other people what they're worldview is."

I wouldn't have to remind you if you would stay consistent with your own worldview. But when you borrow from my worldview for your morality, I'm going to point it out.

"And why should they care about your opinion of what is "objectively" moral??"

They shouldn't. But if it's truly objective, it's not merely MY opinion, now is it? That's the whole point.

"Is the right to judge others really at the heart of your "objective" morality argument?"

Yes, actually it is. (Although that's not what I'm doing here.) Jesus said to judge other people by God's righteous standard. He also said not to judge someone hypocritically. If I judge someone for something I myself am doing or according to my own opinion (or even according to society's opinion), then I am doing wrong. But if I judge someone according to God's standard, I am doing right.

"Of course I have a problem with that! You just said I have morals, didn't you? I can, however, acknowledge that the people of ancient Sparta (and other places) didn't see it the same way that I do!"

That's what I mean. You can say you don't personally like it and that it would be wrong according to our society today but you can't say that it was wrong for them back then. Can you at least acknowledge that? Otherwise it seems like you're not getting the point.

Regarding slavery in the Bible, try reading the following links to get more than just your current superficial understanding of the subject. The articles are short. Again, as always seek not to attack but to understand.:

Does God Approve of Slavery According to the Bible?

www.godandscience.org/apologetics/slavery_bible.html

Does God Condone Slavery in the Old Testament? Part 1

www.toughquestionsanswered.org/2010/08/13/does-god-condone-slavery-in-the-old-testament-part-1/

Does God Condone Slavery in the Old Testament? Part 2

www.toughquestionsanswered.org/2010/08/16/does-god-condone-slavery-in-the-old-testament-part-2/

Does God Condone Slavery in the Old Testament? Part 3

www.toughquestionsanswered.org/2010/08/19/does-god-condone-slavery-in-the-old-testament-part-3/

Does God Condone Slavery in the Old Testament? Part 4

www.toughquestionsanswered.org/2010/08/21/does-god-condone-slavery-in-the-old-testament-part-4/

I'm not sugarcoating anything. Realize that, to an atheist, slavery is not objectively wrong any way, so it's really quite humorous when an atheist talks about ANYTHING being wrong. And recall that those who spoke out loudest and put an end to slavery were all Christians. Atheists who oppose slavery do so typically because they were raised in a Christian society.

Do you honestly believe that without objective morality anything is ok???

You really don't understand at all do you?

I would have thought you were smarter than that, but apparently not.

"You're not a fan of Ray? I love Ray. He's a complete pillock, but a well meaning one. There's no quote mining here (aside from the fact that I didn't actually quote or even name him) . . ."

You didn't have to quote him. I knew what you were getting at.

". . . he made a mistake and admitted it with good humour."

I'm not referring to his mistake about modern bananas being engineered by humans. I mean that the whole thing was a comedy routine and he never seriously intended the banana to be an argument for design. Maybe you're unaware of that. But enough about Ray.

"Please tell me exactly why you think the universe is "fine-tuned", including what you mean by "fine-tuning" and what constants you're actually referring to."

I think we both know what I'm talking about and why I say it.

"Oh - and can you stop confusing it with the Anthropic Principle. It's not the same thing at all - one is philosophy, the other physics."

The Anthropic Principle is a philosophy about the fine-tuning of the physical constants. It comes in two versions:

Weak A.P. - If the universe was not able to produce us, we wouldn't be here and we wouldn't know it existed.

Strong A.P. - The universe exists the way it is for our benefit. Observers are the point of the universe. No us, no universe.

"Well, alright so we agree. Wonderful. Abandon this argument completely then - because something that APPEARS designed because of an ILLUSION of design does not actually need a designer."

But that IS the argument. You say the design is an illusion. I say it's real. So why would I abandon the argument?

"The multi-verse - again! It's not relevant AT all to any point in the discussion we are having. None. If and when it starts to have relevance, I'll be happy to discuss it."

The multi-verse is relevant because the fine-tuning requires an explanation. The atheist's explanation is either the multi-verse or the Weak Anthropic Principle. The theist's explanation is Intelligent Design.

See this article again that I posted on the first thread. It's very good.:

discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator#.UYidEkr9s0s

"And, on what basis, are you concluding that anything "requires a beginning"? Show your workings on this one please because this seems like an assumption, not the end of a logically consistent argument."

I never said anything "requires a beginning." But what has a beginning requires a cause. The universe had a beginning - just like the Bible claimed.

"My sense of morality tells me that torturing babies (for ANY reason) is wrong . . ."

Oh really? Here's a little scenario. A Tamil Tiger - an atheist suicide bomber - tells you to torture a baby for 10 seconds. If you don't, he will blow up himself, you and a million other people including the baby. If you do it, the baby will live - and so will you and the other million people. The terrorist will go to jail. What would you do?

". . . and I'm aware that this is an almost universal sense that I share with my fellow man. It doesn't have to be "objective" in order to be damn obvious to just about everyone except psychopaths."

So where does your sense that it is wrong come from? Your culture? From evolution?

"Why save the baby at all? Because I'm not a scumbag."

Why is letting a baby die a bad thing? Babies die all the time, every day throughout the world. Why is it worse than stealing from someone whom you don't even know who has more reason to care about their money than your baby?

"Your god, incidentally, lets babies starve to death every day. If I am in a position to do something to prevent that, I will. I am infinitely more moral than your god - and so, thankfully, are you."

No, I am not. I would never put myself above God. (Incidentally, Satan thought he was better than God too. When I hear someone talk like that, I hear nothing but pure evil.)

"I would - you could have helped a baby and chose not to. You would at least be a logically consistent Christian following the example of Yahweh and allowing needless and unnecessary suffering for no good reason - and I would despise you for it. I don't despise Yahweh since he doesn't exist, but I would despise you."

I wouldn't despise you. Christianity teaches to "love the sinner but hate the sin." That's just one of the many reasons Christian morality is superior to atheist morality. (I know you're not an atheist, so you have even less of an excuse than they do.)

"Nothing "objectively" wrong, possibly - but certainly very, very morally wrong."

Says who? Is that just your opinion? What if someone who is not a psychopath doesn't share your view? Are they wrong? Why?

"Morality is not a hard thing to figure out. "Tell you what, Best - if we just agree not to murder each other or take each other's things, then we both stand the very best chance of a long and happy life. Deal?"

Why would evolution care about us living a long time? As long as we live to pass on our genes, right? I recently read some articles where scientists were trying to give an evolutionary explanation for the existence of grandmothers. Theoretically women should just die after having children. Their conclusion was that women must live longer so they can babysit the grand kids so the adults can get busy making more kids. How quaint.

"Could our civilization possibly have thrived, could we still be here without a strong and consistent sense of morality? I very, very much doubt it. Thus we have a bloody good reason, do we not, to have developed it as we evolved."

Evolution can explain a lot about human morality but it has a tougher time explaining phenomena like altruism.

"Your overuse of the phrase straw man to just throw out arguments is quite astonishing."

I checked. I used it once on the previous thread and twice so far on this one. It was to three different people, one of which was you (on the first thread.) I don't particularly call that over-use.

It also seems to me that you don't know what it means. A person who make a "straw man argument" argues against a claim that their opponent is not actually making. Atheists often say to me, "I'm an atheist and I'm a good person. We don't need to believe in God to be moral." Well nobody claims you need to BELIEVE in God to be moral. The claim is that God must exist in order to have a foundation for objective morality. Atheists are moral in spite of their atheism. And to be moral they often have to borrow from Christianity - in effect enjoying the fruits while denying the roots.

"No, Hitchens didn't invent this, it's in the bible. It's in the 10 commandments. Do what I say or you will be judged. I'm surprised you haven't read this bit of the bible.... Most Christians find it to be quite an important bit."

So you really think God wants Christians to do good things out of hope of reward or fear of punishment? You have a son. When you discipline him, do you want him to do right next time because it is the right thing to do or because he's afraid you'll punish him again? Parents really should understand God's love better than anyone else.

But best thats not how we all parent. I dont want to rule my child through fear. I may tell her off but I explain why and hope she makes better choices. Not through fear but through seeing the reason why she was told off.

If I catch her running into the road and tell her off I want the reason she doesnt do it again to be afraid of getting hurt. Not afraid of me.

Same goes for Jam in the dvd. It is my place to teach her that this is wrong because the player will break and she wont get to watch dvds.

Same goes for morality. Actions have consequences. Concience aside. If everyone thinks killing is ok then more people get killed. You are more likely to die as a result so we all collectively agree that killing is a bad. You dont need to be a Theist to see that.

"Occams Razor. I said your starting presumptions were in clear breach of this. You said... I dont use it for that I use it to support for to support a single God. That is contradictory, and in your terms, illogical."

January, here is the actual conversation.:

You said: "please dont say you don't want to use Occams Razor. As it is the exact point you use when you say Science cannot prove a theory to be true. It is Occams razor that states you cannot assume by the fact that something has been repeatedly witnessed in 1 way that it would always happen in that way."

I said: "I've never used Occam's razor for that, January. I use it for the multi-verse and other gods. I say "science cannot prove a theory to be true" because that is the nature of science. It can prove things wrong but never proves them 100% right. Please don't mistake this as an indictment of science. It's just the way science works. Case closed."

So when I said I don't use Occam's Razor for that, I meant for the fact that "science cannot prove a theory to be true." Occam's Razor is used to choose between two competing theories. It states that the simplest is often the best or that entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. It has nothing, as far as I can see, to do with science not providing absolute proof. That's because new evidence could always be discovered tomorrow to falsify the theory.

(Incidentally, the big bang is in danger of violating Occam's Razor because new hypothetical entities such as inflation, dark matter and dark energy need to be invoked to rescue it and prop it up. If a simpler theory is devised, the big bang will be abandoned.) Can we drop this issue now?

"My Theological argument:"

I liked this, January. I appreciated you explaining in step-by-step format what you believe. I wish everyone on here would do this. Here are my comments.

"The documents were not written in plain text and need a degree of interpretation. Despite best attempts people are fallible and led by inevitable internal bias."

Possibly, but should we work to minimize that bias and interpret the text the way the author originally intended it to be read or should we just interpret it to mean whatever suits our fancy?

"We are left with looking at general principle. Several minor changes could have the affect of changing even general principles. Therefore the bible cannot be relied upon at all."

Whoa! Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. (Unless you want to torture it for fun. ;^)) There's no logical pathway from "some parts of the Bible may not be accurate" to "the Bible cannot be relied upon at all."

"So, without any religious document to rely on I am left with the dilema "do I still feel and accept the principle of one or more deities". I do. I have my reasons, but I do."

Would you care to share those reasons? I'm really interested to know. They don't seem to be based on any science from the things you've said. So what is it? Intuition? A gut feeling? Faith?

"I am therefore a Theist. I am a Theist who believes everyone has the right to follow their own mind and have their own faith structure. I am therefore a liberal Theist."

Since you said "theist" and not "deist," you believe in a personal God. One who cares about us and answers prayers. Why?

"I am a Theist who thinks God gave us intellegence and questioning minds, not so he can continually test us . . ."

Because you capitalized the word "God," that means you believe in just one God. Why? And why did you refer to God as a "he"?

". . . but so we can look at the universe, learn from each other and see a bloody amazing job very well done. Science is amazing and beautiful and wonderful. To look at it all as a test is disrespectful in my opinion."

I agree. In Christianity, it is essential that science and God's Word agree with each other. God is not a deceiver and does not trick us. Ultimately, we deceive ourselves.

"Do you honestly believe that without objective morality anything is ok??? You really don't understand at all do you? I would have thought you were smarter than that, but apparently not."

Pedro, I believe you are a smart and kind person. I've seen it when you talk to others. I think continually resorting to ad hominem attacks is beneath you. You could have let your first sentence stand as it was. I will now answer you question.

Do I honestly believe that without objective morality anything is okay? No, I do not. But I have asked people to tell me what the foundation for their morality is. Not just how they became aware of it, but what it is based on. Admittedly, most people's morals are developed when they are very young - mostly be their parents and siblings and later by their peers. Those are derived from their culture which often includes religion.

So if I ask you, "Why is it wrong to do ?" it seems to me that you must say either, "Because my culture says so" or "Because evolution made me that way." (If you know of another option, let me know. Maybe there is one I just haven't thought of.)

The question becomes if, "your culture says so," how can you criticize a different culture which says something different?

"But best thats not how we all parent. I dont want to rule my child through fear. I may tell her off but I explain why and hope she makes better choices. Not through fear but through seeing the reason why she was told off."

Right. And that's what God wants too.

"Same goes for morality. Actions have consequences."

Right again. But in the atheist's universe there is no ultimate justice. Actions don't always have consequences. Sometimes in this life, the bad guy gets away with it. Seems like you're making a good case for what the Bible calls "eternal punishment."

"Concience aside. If everyone thinks killing is ok then more people get killed. You are more likely to die as a result so we all collectively agree that killing is a bad. You dont need to be a Theist to see that."

No, of course not. And that's why no one makes the argument that you must believe in God to be moral.

So you really think God wants Christians to do good things out of hope of reward or fear of punishment?

Ummm, no..... I don't think god exists. Have you not picked up on that yet? But based on your belief, you have your sacred document which tells you quite clearly in commandment 3:

You must not misuse the name of the Lord your God. The Lord will not let you go unpunished if you misuse his name.

This is very clear, break my rules and you will be punished.

And in commandment 2:

I lay the sins of the parents upon their children; the entire family is affected?even children in the third and fourth generations of those who reject me. But I lavish unfailing love for a thousand generations on those who love me and obey my commands.

Again, punishment for breaking the rules and significant reward for following them.

This isn't even in a bizarre, mistakable part of the bible. It's the 10 commandments.

You have a son. When you discipline him, do you want him to do right next time because it is the right thing to do or because he's afraid you'll punish him again? Parents really should understand God's love better than anyone else.

Actually I'm fortunate enough not to have had to punish my son yet. He's only 2.

But being a parent, I don't understand what you call "god's love" at all, because quite clearly god 'loves' by threatening punishment.

And that's why no one makes the argument that you must believe in God to be moral.

Actually, a lot of people do. Perhaps it's them you should be preaching to. Not saying that's a rational position to take, but religion give some people some pretty strange ideas.