>>17900788
>using purely materialism to come to a moral framework you end up with (>>17900691)
Proof by Example fallacy, that guy is a retard. But the reality, again, whether you want to face this fact or not, is that not a single country, in the history of the world, has ever thrown out their legal framework in favor of the Bible. For one thing, the morality of the Bible itself, especially the Old Testament, is highly questionable in the modern age, and the Bible as a whole is only selectively followed by modern Christians, with ongoing debates as to what verses are metaphor or literal, and secondly, we have relied exclusively on secular moral law, based on consensus, for hundreds to thousands of years with no Bible required
If you want to generalize "Atheist Morality" with a single word it would probably just be "reciprocity" as that approach ensures that all parties living within a society has some mutually beneficial ideal. God is not required for this anon
>If the point of life is to go to heaven (scoring enough goodboy points) you end up with a man being crucified for crimes he did not commit
You're missing the point, if God is meant to be the ultimate judge of your morals after you die, it means humans are not actually obligated by said God to uphold these morals. We do it for secular reasons, under a metaphysical veneer.