Now ask your friend to define Good and Bad. There is no objective morality out there so it will be very hard for him to define it ( because he is listening to Jakir Naik crap lol ). Stealing is not good neither it is bad (in an objective sense). Good and Bad are social constructions which we made for evolutionary reasons. So this question does not make sense, it is like asking what is the color of love ( many will say red/pink lol) ?
This doesn't make sense. You are supporting the very which you intend to contrast.
If good and bad are not objective according to you, you are actually supporting what my friend said, that good and bad isn't objective but what God has revealed to human beings. Your logic breaks your own conclusion.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg ethics or religion? I have nothing against religion or religious people, but the notion that one needs religion to be ethical is not only ludicrous, but kind of disturbing. I guess that's why we have religion, for those who are incapable of behaving ethically without the threat of fire and brimstone and eternal damnation.
I don't disagree. But I think religion from ancient times has had an influence in shaping the molarity and ethics which we today believe in. A sky daddy isn't truly needed to define morality, but keeping slaves were legal very recently till even in countries where state and church were separated!
I know it is hard to understand but look at following way,
1) Why your theist friend is asking the question? Because he knows that there is no objective morality out there which is the point of an atheist and is very hard to dismantle because of logical in nature. So what he is doing is turning the table which you must have prevented in the very first place by asking him to define what is Good and Bad.
2)He is setting a closed ended question by presenting atheist as thief. You can ask him why loving your neighbors is good for a religious person (in absolute sense)?
