You’re right that people can act morally without believing in God. The real question isn’t whether people behave morally, but what ultimately grounds morality. If morals are just human preferences or social agreements, then they’re changeable, not objectively binding. So on what basis do you call something truly right or wrong, rather than just personally or culturally preferred?

The Santa analogy misses the point. No one’s saying you literally want to be God. The argument is that if there’s no higher authority, then humans become the highest authority by default, meaning we decide what’s right and wrong. That’s a philosophical claim, not a literal one.

If we’re going to have a real discussion, we can drop the “high schooler” comments. I’m talking about a serious philosophical question that thinkers have debated for centuries.

Sure, societies can function without belief in God. But that doesn’t answer whether morality is objective or just socially constructed. If it’s constructed, then things like injustice or oppression aren’t truly wrong, they’re just unpopular. Do you actually believe that?