To weaselgirl,
What I mean is that morals is a man made concept
just like the concept of god.

Simple question. First, I asked you if there was any inherent purpose, which would be purpose supplied by the simple act of being. Non-inherent means a purpose which is not supplied simply by being. In other words, can we create our own purpose? If so, does it have any value? And by proxy, does life have any value?

A transcendent being did say that. Where do you think DS got the idea?

Actually he did say it, not in the sense that he articulated it, but that he set it forth as true.

What is the difference between "two plus two equals four" and "Thou shalt not murder?" It turns out they are rather similar.

"2+2=4" is a mathematical expression used to communicate mathematical truth derived from mathematical laws.

"Thou shalt not murder" is an expression about morality that communicates moral truth from moral laws.

God applied mathematical (and scientific) laws to the universe. The universe is bond by these laws.

God applied moral laws to mankind. But unlike the universe, he gave mankind free will to chose whether to obey moral laws.

"2+2=4" is absolutely true because of the laws the God established.
"Thou shalt not murder" is absolutely moral because of the laws that God established.
"Tuna is better than steak" is just an opinion. It is not a part of any law that God established. I don't know of any evidence that would suggest that God has opinions.

2+2 = 4 is always true, regardless of circumstance. If God says 2+2=5, it still equals 4. We don't need to define circumstances where 2+2 =/= 4, like we need to define circumstances where killing is or is not murder.

And anyone who thinks tuna is better than steak has never been to my house for a cookout.

Your conceptualization of evolutionary biology is incorrect. I explain in reference to your below example:

The only reason I, and you would feel morally compelled to help her is the very same reason that supports my claim for the existence of moral objectivity.

Evolution changes us in a way that facilitates the survival of the - collective/the species - and not necessarily in a way that facilitates the survival of an individual. Children - who are yet to procreate - are much more important to the survival of the species/the collective, then adults - who have already procreated/and/or are getting older and less capable of surviving/procreating more. Evolution then codes our DNA in a way that makes - sacrificing your own life in an attempt to save your daugther - morally compelling and justified. The only reason you, me and anyone else on these boards would sacrifice their life to attempt to save their daughter is the very reason (species survival) that I am using to claim the existence of moral objectivity.

Your example here therefore adds great support to my claim. Thank you. If you're still finding it difficult to wrap your head around, I will elaborate further below:

The reason most people cannot grasp this view of objective morality is that they do not conceptualize the way in which evolution works properly. Whenever they think survival, they think - things which help ME survive/morals that help ME survive. But evolution does not work like that. It works on a collective level more aligned with - things which help THE SPECIES survive/morals that will help THE SPECIES survive.

Once you conceptualize it properly, you will understand what I am talking about. You will also understand that conflicts between - behavior which helps ME survive - and - behavior which helps THE SPECIES survive - are bound to emerge. In examples, where they do emerge (such as your example) - the behavior - which in the long run - is more likely to help THE SPECIES survive, will usually be considered as morally favorite.

So? I don't think the morality of the Holocaust is determined by the views of Nazis.

What does it depend on?

And let's focus on one case at a time.

Did God create these objective laws, or did he merely apply them? Because if he merely applied them, then it doesn't seem like their objectivity comes from God, but rather from their inherent nature.

The kind of theist to whom you pose this question would like respond that s/he is not valuing faith over morality but instead equating the two.

There is no objective litmus for a moral action - there is only what people say about it. A person of faith can easily say "damn the torpedoes" and it works every time. They die? No problem - their faith covers that, too. It's an all-encompassing system.

Logic/rationality are powerless in the face of faith.

For this very reason, (blind) faith has been used by political elite for millenia to maintain control over their subjects.

Honestly, trying to argue with people who believe literally in a thousand-year-old text translated across three or four languages and explicitly propogated as a means of political control (thanks, Constantine) is just begging to become frustrated.

I think that even if it was used for a moral and just purpose, it wouldn't make it any better. For faith-based beliefs require the paralysis of thought, that makes one predisposed to other nonsensical faith-based beliefs, as well as endless self-rationalization and self-delusion. This may come across as highly judgemental but I'm almost word-for-word quoting a neuroscience study of - Christians who speak in tongues.

Excatly. I dont think the morality of the holocaust is determined by the views of some random guy on
the internet or for that matter anyone.

Power.
If the Nazis had of won the war, then their
verison of "right" and "wrong" would be applied to the world
today.

The point i was trying to make is how do you
justify barack killing bin laden and still
have the abosulte moral that murder Is
wrong?

Why is it ok for the usa but not the nazis? All
you have is reasons, how do you determine what reason is best
and more important who determines them?

In other words why are you special?

hmm that couldnt be because 98% of their time is spent at home, or around family members/someone whos not a priest, nah that would be too logical. i see theist logic all the time around here which is why im sure you came up with the conclusion you did.

Again it has no value because I am not sure how you measure that. I am sure YOU can create a purpose for your life...so? Doesnt make it objective.

I don't see how it could be possible for the laws to exist without God creating them. Imagine before the creation of the universe. There exists only God and some laws. Laws that govern things that do not exist yet. Laws that God himself is not subject to. Where did they come from? Do they eternally exist as God does? Would they not then be a god as well? But a lesser god than God would not be a god. Does not compute.

So I believe that when he created the natural world, he also created the laws that govern it.

Of course it can't be objective, as everyone's value would necessarily be independent. But do you see any subjective value in life? Or to the life of another?

Arguments from incredulity.

In any case, you're arguing for a Deistic god. The circumstances you've listed in no way require a specific god, much less the God of the Bible.

Like a $ amount or what? Maybe you can put
$ amount on life. I find it hard to answer because
I have nothing to compare it to, we all are
going to die, theres no point to anything. Its
like asking what value has a worm.

Expand on your comment about incredulity imo. I don't see that I've been arguing for a specific god. My original answer was about the God of the Bible, because the OP asked for that perspective or from the Koran. I don't know Arabic so I can't read the Koran.

What do you mean by deistic god? God of the Bible or Koran vs Gods of the Romans or Greeks? Those gods resembled humans.

I do accept the God of the Bible. His attributes as described in the Bible are the most rational. It agrees with what I see in reality.

What makes this so absurd, is that WLC is a classic hell believer.
God is necessary for us to say that the holocaust is wrong.
What does he do to right the wrong on behalf of the victims? He sends them to hell.

Let us create an example that illustrates the problem.
Lets say I am walking down the street, and sees person A hit person B.
I give person A a moral speech, about how wrong it is to solve ones problems with violence.
I then produce a tire iron from my knapsack and beat person B to death.
Does anyone say my moral speech was not hypocritical?

More importantly, does anyone say that your analogy is an accurate comparison of the situation?

Argument from Incredulity fallacy. Starting off your argument with 'I don't see how it could be possible' is in classic form.

Regarding Deism, I'm referring to the possibility of a creator God, but not a specific god like Yahweh, Allah, or those of mythology.

I would say so, but lets forget my analogy for a minute.

You don’t see the absurdity, when the being, whose existence allows us to take a stance against the perpetrators,
condemns the victims to eternal torture?

"I don't see how it could be possible" is not my major or minor premise. Rather than relying on a lack of imagination of the audience, I opened up the imagination within reasonable assumptions and showed the contradictions caused by the proposition.

Also Yahweh and Allah are "creator gods." Showing reasonable evidence of a creator god is just one step in building a strong foundation for my belief system.

I don't see evidence for anyone sending anyone to hell for being a victim.