Don’t take the comments of one person (identifying himself as Christian) to be the answers he should have given. Nor, expect that all of us would respond the same way.

Intuition is a dangerous basis upon which determine generalities. It’s unreliable.

Unfortunately, it is immoral – as the writer breaking copyright is claiming credit for something which was not theirs to begin with…

Most of the time when people disagree about “Grey” issues it’s primarily because they don’t believe the particular action breaks any moral laws.

I don’t think that your argument is completely “fair” to the Christian, as the statements made by him don’t reflect the beliefs of the majority of Christians. Well, at least those of us who think logically :)

He also seems to see no moral issue where things might work in his favour with little chance of discovery.

His god given morality on steeling birdbaths seems to say not to do it simply because you won’t get away with it. I think his responses reflect human nature very much more than pointing to some supreme being.

I think there are some agreed shared values by most people regardless of which gods they do or don’t believe in which I’d have though would be an argument against any one particular god having inspired it all.

Another thing that would be interesting to discuss would be the morality of the God in the old testament. and how it compares with morality of modern secular societies of today. It seems to me either we have become more moral as we have turned from crackpot religion to the rule of democracy, liberty and law. These are far better inspirations for morality.

However you should have pushed back on the very first logical fallacy “Christian: The human moral sense is evidence that God exists. If there is no God, then were do we get our moral sense?” as 1) existence of X doesn’t require creator of X or 2) perhaps a moral sense was an evolutionary step that helped mankind to survive.

You could have also asked “According to the O.T, who directly (or via orders) KILLED the most people?”. That who, of course, was god. Doesn’t sound very moral to me.

It’s an unwinnable argument of the No True Scotsman sort; if you agree with him it’s because you’re clearly in touch with the universal moral sense he believes in. If you disagree, well, you surely still have that universal moral sense but it’s been obscured by your culture.

If he’s an example of the kind of morality that religion fosters, I’ll continue to be good without god, thanks.

Same thing with the difference between a car and a bicycle. If we use the definition that something sitting there for a long period of time has been abandoned and it’s morally fine to take it, then the same thing is between the car and the bicycle. and if it doesn’t, then how is taking the bicycle okay?

Getting advice from an employee in-store and then buying the books on amazon is essentially stealing from their company, because you used their resources (the employee’s knowledge and time) without giving them anything in return.

Surfing the internet at work depends on what you are supposed to be doing instead of it. if you have finished all your work, then there is nothing wrong with it. If you are surfing the internet while there is a big project you need to work on, then it is stealing because you are stealing the company’s time that it is paying you to do work.

Plagiarism could easily be considered stealing because you could easily consider “Credit” a resource. It is possible you are stealing future prosperity from someone in the future by taking the resource “credit” from them that they would need to get another book deal or a job.

Sneaking into a movie theater that is sold out is also stealing because you are stealing that person’s movie watching experience. it is essentially the same thing as stealing a rented copy of the movie from that person.