On Morality and Counter-Apologetics

[Jester]

I have heard it claimed by several on this site that morality is merely a social construction. In general, the state of affairs is that those who believe in some kind of deity/higher power believes objective ethics flow from that deity; those who don't believe consider human opinion (whether corporate, individual, or both) to be the source of ethics.

It seems to me, and to most atheists with whom I've discussed the matter, that there is no point in using the Bible as a source of ethics until you've convinced your opponent that the God of the Bible exists (and, for some, not even then).

While many theists tend to be blind to this fact, the opposite seems the harder to grasp for some atheists I have personally encountered: That, if one claims that social convention and/or individual decision is the source of all ethics, those who disagree will be entirely nonplussed by moral cries made on these grounds.

More simply, there are those who seem to demand that religion has caused a great deal of immorality - expecting to make the religious see the err of their ways - then sabotage their own claim by stating that morality is up to society. What is more surprising to me is the case of claiming that ethics are social, then claiming (in a predominantly theist society) that worshiping a God is immoral.

The questions, then, are as follows:
Is it reasonable to claim that ethics are socially created, but that it is not unethical to disagree with a society?
Is this what is actually being claimed by the non-theists which you have encountered (or yourself, if you happen to be a non-theist)? If not, what is it?
Quite apart from truth, is there any point in theists or non-theists trying to persuade an opponent with ideas which require acceptance of a whole new paradigm before they will carry any weight?
If indeed morals are merely human constructs, is there any process by which we can claim that some are better than others, or are we stuck with the idea that the Nazis are no more good or bad than we?
Lastly, is there any view of ethics which does not either depend on belief in some form of deity or logically lead us to nihilism?

[Jester]

Now, that is 100% opposite of my point. I find your entire opening post trying to push a world viewpoint onto someone else that is not appropriate to them...

I am definitely arguing in favor of a world view, yes. As I understand it, that is the point of this site, and debate in general.

and you are ignoring the points made.. Ignoring what is said and refusing to see the other viewpoint is not reasonable, and your entire concept is flaw.

I have addressed the points made. Essentially, I have questioned their premises, asking for logical support for the idea that protecting human life and a functional society is a good thing. If you and I cannot come up with such support, then I don't see how it is at all unreasonable for me to conclude that we believe this for non-rational reasons. Simply telling me that I'm ignoring points does not address my reasoning here.
On this point, I'd be inclined to agree with David Hume's statement that "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions." That is, reason tells us how to get what we want, not why we should want it. In addition, it tells us how to study the physical world, not whether or not it exists. It tells us if our concept of the spiritual is consistent, not whether or not there is a spiritual.
If there is a clear flaw in this, please point it out. Likewise, if there is some point to which I have not directly responded. I'd be eager to learn. What I don't find helpful, however, is a restatement of a position that doesn't take these questions into consideration (at least not in a way that has been made clear to me).