Do you think that all religious people pull out a checklist before making every decision?

Just because someone is religious doesn't mean they act like puppies their master God. I don't know who lied to you about religious people but I'm sorry you are so mistaken.

I'm pretty sure God wants us to use our minds.

I don't think there is absolute morality ["Stealing is wrong"] unless we understand it as an infinite list of moral claims that cover every possible scenario like "Stealing is not wrong if you do it to feed your starving family, do not take from someone equally in need, have no better option available, try your best to repay, (many more caveats)".
I can at least imagine circumstances where objective morality exists. Therefore I find it more plausible.

In the world we live in, yes. In an alternate reality there could be an external source (e.g.god) to give us moral guidance.

Yeah id agree.

I gave/give them that out.


If Gods guiding them on every moral question and they have found the objective moral truth to all their moral dilemmas. Ok.

I seriously thought we just went over this...

We found once instance where a person can come to living a moral life based on his own experiences.

It doesn't follow that every individual will come to those same conclusions...

To demonstrate it is unnecessary, I only need one instance. We are talking about something supposedly 'objective' after-all, aren't we?

So let's say an objective truth is: do not unto others as they would not do unto you

You do not believe in objective truths. Yet you unwittingly participate in this behavior of doing not unto others. You came to believe in this through trial and error and making up your own mind using your subjectivity.

To you, there is no need for an objective truth. So now you're going to argue that there is no need for anybody to have objective morality as a guideline.

There is a missing premise in your argument. Do you see it? The missing premise is: everybody thinks exactly like you do.

Therefore if everyone thinks exactly like you, then objective morality is unnecessary.

But does everyone think exactly like you?

That's not an objective truth, that's not even a proposition.

If there are two ways to arrive at one truth, whether people do it one way or the other is largely the result of the prevailing norms in our society's culture. If those norms were reversed, and less people believed in God/objective morality, people would still arrive at the same truth - subjectively.

What is (the way the world currently is) should not be conflated with what ought (the way the world ought to be). What you're doing here has been identified by Hume, as a logical error.

Just because societal culture believes X currently, does not mean that believing X is necessary (or ought) for the future. The fact its not necessary has been demonstrated by me, as an example, already.

Replace it with: "human suffering is bad"

That's a very different sentence but I don't see how religion makes that true.

Possibly. Just because someone arrives at something subjectively, doesn't mean that the thing arrived at is not objective. This is the key point where we differ. If you take a dirt road, and I take a paved road, we can still end up at the same house, and play a card game in that house.

I agree with Hume here. I don't see how I'm going against this.

I'm just not understanding what you're saying here.

Sure. But you just need to acknowledge that you believe in this objective morality on the basis of faith. There is no way to prove its existence or to disprove its existence. I went over this earlier as well.

There is however a way to disprove its necessity (as a belief for the moral functioning of society), as I had demonstrated to you.
Not particularly important. It was a comment to show the error in thinking that just because the majority of people don't subjectively arrive at moral truths that we mutually consider important, doesn't mean they couldn't do so if societal norms were reversed and very few believed in God/objective morality.

You're still admitting that subjectivity leads to objective moral truths.

The fact that you and I agree on certain behavior being good or bad shows there is objectivity.

Or can you find a situation where raping someone's daughter is morally good?

I'm very far from a Nietzsche expert, but I know enough to understand that you misrepresent his works.

There is nothing to avoid and no need for the aggressive tone. The issue is simple and no problem exists. If you get to say there is a moral foundation without explaining how or why, everybody else gets to do the same.

This is a problem with your beliefs, not mine.

I think once more you are mixing up absolute and objective morality.

Many animal species have been known at times to eat their own children and their partners. Under an 'objective morality' framework this would be considered immoral. Yet, upon further reflection, that's not the case at all. Many species depend on behaviours we'd consider highly immoral, in order to survive and thrive.

Objective morality simply adds an unnecessary assumption, and for that reason it is an inferior framework. Subjective morality can explain the variance we see quite fine as it is. Relying on less assumptions, it can lead to same behaviours and motivations too, making it a superior framework.

Some theists have it as an objective moral truth suffering is good, the bad humans will suffer in the afterlife and thats good.

There have even been traditions of prayers by some religious people designed to cause suffering...forget the name for it...

I know you know this as your knowledge of religion is large.

That didn't happen though and it's dishonest to suggest it did.

No, and neither did you.

Did you find out who came up with the concept of anger?

If there is a God, maybe this is true.

Maybe when we die, the atheists go to heaven for not believing in crazy bull**** without evidence and the theists have to go to some kind of remedial limbo.

And this is the core of the entire "God makes the moral foundation" type of argumentation. It is arbitrary and can be used to rationalize anything.

And it is not like this is a purely theoretical problem. People kill each other over their respective claims regarding God's command, and it is an extremely resilient type of conflict because it doesn't answer to reason.

Yes but we're talking about humans so let's just stick with humans.

Variance exists, sure, and there is always context. The objective part means that it can be agreed upon by more than one person. It is not just the opinion of one person. If you're going to design a court system that doesn't allow objectivity, trials would go on forever. Unless you can think of way that they wouldn't...

No, but on record Jesus was the first person to speak of Agape. In the vast history of philosophy before him there is no record of it. You're saying that means nothing?

I have no good reason to think it wasn't him. Neither do you, unless you have a bias. May as well give credit where it's due.

People kill each other for all kinds of reasons, usually power, then they rationalize it. Sun Tzu seems to have a bigoted view of theists. It's not hard to imagine a society where atheists murder theists for their religion. Oh wait, it has already happened

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persec...e_Soviet_Union