Justify the belief that gods do not exist.

[wiploc]

Some people believe that gods do not exist. (One can call this position "atheism" or "strong atheism" or "anti-theist perversion," anything you want. But we aren't going to argue terminology in this thread. Clarity is good, so you can explain what you personally mean by "atheist," but you shouldn't suggest that other usages are inferior.)

This thread is to make a list of arguments, of reasons to believe that theism is false.

And we can discuss the soundness of those arguments.

I'll start:

1. The Parable of the Pawnbroker.
(I'll just post titles here, so as not to take too much space at the top of each thread.)

2. Presumptive Falsity of Outrageous Claims.



Feel free to add to this list.

[Divine Insight]

Let me ask you, DI, what in your opinion makes anything in reality objective? How can you say that there is an objective reality at all?

To begin with I can't say that there exists an objective reality. But I can offer you a working practical definition that makes science both possible and dependable.

Objective reality is simply that which can be observed in a way that can be quantitatively measured and recorded with dependable repeatable results AND can be verified independently by all observers who exist within reality.

It does appear that such an objective reality does exist, at least on a macro scale. The certainty of this becomes less apparent when we exam the fabric of reality at very fine scales. The "objectivity" of reality begins to be less clear.

So whether reality is objective or not at its fundamental level I'm not prepared to say with any degree of certainty. But there does appear to be some objective stability associated with the macro world that we experience on a daily basis.

In my view, we say that the physical reality is objective precisely because it appears to be the same for everyone (with a few exceptions, of course).

I'm not aware of any exceptions unless you are indeed speaking of the quantum level of reality.

Similarly, why cannot we call certain moral base values objective, if they appear to be the same for everyone?

Well, you're getting into the fuzzy area of foundational premises already. Upon what are you basing these "base values" of morality?

As I have already pointed out Sam Harris begins to build upon a foundational assumption that "suffering", or the prevention thereof, might be used as a foundational premise for building a moral system.

That's fine, but even then you need to get 100% consensus that "suffering" is a valid foundation upon which to build morality. And it should come as no surprise that you will indeed find people who passionate object to that very starting point.

So right off the bat you have already lost any claim to have an "objective morality". You need to get 100% consensus on your foundational premise before you can even begin to build something that might be claimed to be "objective morality".

Why do you insist that even the very basic moral values cannot have an objective foundation, even if they appear to be exactly the same in everybody's moral experience?

I wouldn't object to such a system if you could provide one. But at this point in time I don't see where anyone has proposed a non-subjective foundation upon which everyone will agree.

And if your foundation isn't objective, then how can you claim that what you build upon it is objective?

~~~

I think many people might agree that some forms of suffering our objective. But I think many people will also hold that other forms of suffering are indeed purely subjective (This is one of the Noble Truths of Buddhism, for example).

But even if you get people to agree that suffering is objective and measurable, then you still need to get consensus on the idea that suffering should be used as a foundation for morality, and I think you'll quickly find that you'll run into a whole lot of different subjective opinions on that one.

~~~~

You ask, "who would be the judge of objective morality?". Well, I ask who is the judge of objective reality? The answer to both questions is the same, nobody is the judge of objective reality or objective morality, but we all are witnesses of both.

I absolutely disagree with your statement here.

You can take physical scientists who never met each other and have no clue what results the other scientist had obtained. Send these scientists in to laboratories independently and ask them to come up with the laws of physics.

At the end of the day what you will find is that all these scientists return with precisely the same results. (assuming the scientific method was indeed employed honestly and without bias or the falsification of data).

However, try doing that with groups of people sent into different rooms to come up with "objective morality". I think what you'll find is that they will all come back with entirely different ideas.

And this is especially true if you don't force upon them that they must use "suffering" as a foundation for morality. If you don't tell them that first, they may very well come up with totally different foundational ideas for what they feel morality should be based upon.

In fact, this would actually be a really good experiment to do. We should be doing this. We should be taking totally unprepared people placing them in groups to work out a system of "absolute objective morality". And see what they come up with. I can guarantee you that if those group had not been previously seeded with the idea that morality should be based upon suffering they are highly unlikely to all decide that this should be the foundational basis of morality.

We might actually get a lot of new ideas if we conduct this experiment and see what different kinds of moral systems people propose.

In my books, solipsism and moral relativism are the same. Sure, I have no way of justifying the objectivity of my sensory experience or my moral experience, but I find it completely unnecessary for anyone to be skeptical towards either one.

Just as their is good evidence for an "objective macro reality", there might be some consensus on "Macro Morals". In other words, there are going to be some issues of morality that are so obvious that any sane person is going to agree with them. Like it being immoral to torture innocent babies.

You can take consensus on that pretty much to the bank.

But it won't be long before the topic of morality becomes far more subtle on other issues, and then the obvious objectivity based upon consensus is going to quickly evaporate.

For example what's the "Objective Morality" on capital punishment? Do we put dangerous criminals to death or not?

Gee Whiz if our morality is based upon a foundation of suffering I say put them to death as painlessly as possible. That would be less suffering then keeping them penned up for life in a jail. That's my subjective opinion on that one.

You see, even a system that appears to be based on the objectivity of suffering can be questionable in certain situations.

I know that if I were sentenced to life imprisonment I would much rather be put to death painlessly if that option were available to me. So for me, putting people to death who have been sentenced to life imprisonment is not only moral, but it's even the most humane thing to do.

And this is especially true if they request it! Then they are in agreement with me that they would rather die than spend the rest of their life in prison.

When you get into morality you can't just think about proclaiming that torturing babies is immoral. You're going to need to deal with far more complex issues than that. And proclaiming all those choices of "moral behavior" to be "objective" is going to be increasingly difficult to defend.

We're better off confessing at the get go that our moral values are necessarily going to need to be subjective. And therefore based upon consensus of whoever we appoint to make the moral laws.

[wiploc]

Sam Harris made me a moral realist, so I'm with you that far.

I just don't see why you keep shooting yourself in the foot by insisting that morality comes down to personal caprice. "I happen to like respecting women, and I'll think you're stupid if you don't too." That's not helping the team. You don't see Harris doing that.

But Sam Harris is ultimately doing that whether you realize it or not.

I doubt that.

I haven't read his actual book, but I have watched him speak about this on several videos. He begins by embracing several totally subjective and unprovable axioms.

I recommend his book.

He begins by stating that most everyone will agree that suffering is bad and that no one wants so suffer. So he's starting out with something he feels that he can easily gain a large subjective consensus on.

The near-consensus is handy, but it isn't the basis of the system.

He also CHEATS in a major way by automatically assuming that this applies to all humans (i.e. both male and female equally) So he already has misogyny out of the way early on in this assumption. He's already assuming from the get-go that all humans want to avoid suffering and that men and women should have equal rights when considering what might be the cause of suffering.

He cheats, huh? If you'd like, we can start a thread about his book. Go thru it chapter by chapter.

It may sound iron-clad "logical" to you, but that's only because you subjectively agree with his starting premises.

No.

But there are many other people who will subjectively disagree with Sam Harris' starting premises. There are many people who will ask, "What does suffering have to do with morality?" There are people who actually believe that suffering is a good thing. There are people who believe that suffering is what teaches us lessons and if we try to remove all suffering we will become stagnant and not learn lessons, etc.

Those people can be challenged and educated.

Trust me, Sam Harris himself is getting all manner of opposition to his views on what foundational morality should be built upon.

Which shows only that some people are still wrong.

Religious fanatics will even cite the Bible and proclaim that it's "God's Will" that women are to suffer in childbirth, for example. In fact, the curses that God inflicted upon Adam in terms of hardships were also meant to cause suffering. So they will immediately argue that suffering is actually required by God.

Yes, but those people's opinions don't count because they are subjectively stupid.

Of course, people like you and me and Sam Harris are going to think that's crazy.

It's not crazy unless we've got something demonstrably better. Saying, "Well, this is my subjective opinion," isn't going to make us seem un-crazy.

It appears to us that if we are going to have a system of "Morality", (which to us is just ethics), then it needs to be based on fairness.

Fairness? How about happiness?

And the best way to determine what is "fair" is by attempting to measure the amount of suffering that might be associated with particular actions.

You've got the cart before the horse.

A scientific morality needs to have something to measure.

Harris deals with the measurers in his book. I recommend it to you.

Actually this type of philosophy has it's own problems. It will ultimately lead to the ideal that if anyone is suffering more than someone else then clearly something immoral must be occurring.

I think that's because you started with fairness rather than happiness, and then are pursuing fairness in a look-I-can-show-that-this-isn't-possible way.

In any case, I'm not endorsing your system, which seems to me a straw man. I do endorse Harris's system.

Therefore in a morality built on this ideal it would be immoral for some people to be wealthy and for others to be poor. Because surely the poor people are suffering more than the rich.

Well then, that's a perverse morality, and you need to get a different one.

It's not going to be perfect by a long shot.

Not the way you're working it.

And it's certainly not "objective" at all. It's entirely subjective based upon the premise that everything should be done to cause the least amount of suffering, and that everyone should be treated equally under this system.

Since I do not approve of your system, I do not object to you calling it "subjective." The fact that you can construct a dysfunctional subjective system does not weigh against other systems.

You can argue that its "objective" in the sense that it's based upon suffering and suffering can be "measured" thus making it objective. But in truth, the only thing that is objective is the suffering, not the morality.

And yet you say that gods could make objective systems? What if a god made a system based on reducing suffering? Would that be subjective or objective?

In fact, even the suffering becomes difficult to measure. Like I say, is it then innately immoral to have rich people and poor people? Clearly the poor people are suffering more than the rich people. So this system suggests that if anyone is richer than someone else then something immoral is going on.

That's a silly system.

It's a great ideal, and far better than basing our morality on a God who inflicts suffering on people to teach them a lesson.

Far better? How are you going to test that notion? Or is this another case of you insisting that your judgement is subjective but people who disagree are stupid?

But it's still a subjective construct of mankind and it's going to be far from perfect. It's also certainly not an objective morality. It's a morality that is built upon a concept of "suffering" where there is an attempt to make suffering objective by suggesting that it can be objectively measured. But it's not even always possible to objectively measure suffering. Much suffering is entirely subjective as the Buddha has so wisely pointed out.

Again, I don't see the appeal of your system, so I'm not going to defend it.

I personally favor Sam Harris' proposed scientific morality over biblical morality by far.

Here, we are in agreement.

But that does not make Sam Harris' model an objective morality.

No, you favoring it does not make it objective.

It's simply a model of morality that is based upon subjective ideals concerning suffering.

It's a good model, it would be interesting to have people work on it and build a system of morality to see where it might lead. It's not going to be without some problems and contradictions.

I mean face it, a system of morality that is based upon the idea of "no suffering" could never be said to be perfected until every single person was experiencing precisely the same amount of suffering.

If it was based on no suffering, then it wouldn't be achieved until there was no suffering. If it was based on equal suffering, it could be achieve by casting everyone eternally into Hellfire.

If anyone is suffering more than someone else then, based on the very foundation of this moral system, something immoral must necessarily be going on.

So, that would be a silly system.

So it's heading for a philosophical catastrophe in the end in terms of the fact that it could never be a perfect system of morality in practice.

I don't know why you're talking about this straw man.

But, yeah, from a practical point of view it's a good place to start.

Why would you say that if it's only your subjective opinion, backed up only by your willingness to consider alternatives stupid?

And it sure beats out biblical morality where people are supposedly being punished by an angry jealous God.

Sure beats it subjectively? Is that all there is too it?

But the morality that Sam Harris is proposing it not an "Objective" morality in any absolute sense.

I don't understand. What can you mean by "absolute" in this context?

It's clearly dependent entirely upon human subjective opinions on what constitutes suffering, and on who has equal rights to not suffer.

You're making that up. It's a straw man.

[wiploc]

I'd do anything to avoid Hellfire. But my compliance with the omnipotent tyrant would not be moral. You can't make something moral by forcing people to do it. Gods can't make something objectively moral.

Would you really do anything to avoid Hellfire?

Yes.

Think of it this way. Suppose you were in Germany during WWII and Adolf Hitler gave you a choice. You could either work for him exterminating the Jews by putting them in furnaces and burning them to death, or he will put you in a furnace and burn you to death.

What would you do?

I don't know. I might be noble.

Would you spend the rest of your days exterminating innocent Jews? Or would you refuse to cooperate and be thrown into the Hellfire yourself rather than taking part in his madness?

That would be a regular fire, followed by death. Hellfire doesn't end.

And when it comes to a God why should your choice be any different?

Because that would be a regular fire, followed by death. Hellfire doesn't end.

Why would you do something immoral to appease a God but not Hitler?

See, it's because Hitler's fire is temporary, but Jehovah's fire is infinitely worse.

It's an objective fact that respecting women has a strong tendency to increase happiness. That's what makes respecting women moral.

If a god ordered us to abuse women, there isn't any sense in which that would make abusing women moral. Gods have nothing to do with morality.

...

I'm not "defending" this ancient mythology by any means. ... superstitious garbage having no more merit than the fables of Zeus and company.

Then we'll say no more about it.

In any case, if we're going to have a modern day system of "Ethics" it should be based upon something like Sam Harris is proposing.

Is that your subjective opinion, your personal whim, which people disagree with at peril of being thought subjectively stupid?

In fact, we shouldn't even call it "morality" we should simply call it "ethics" and trash the word "morality" entirely because morality causes people to think in terms of absolutism.

It's a point of view.

Whereas "ethics" actually sounds more subjective which it should be.

But it only subjectively should be, right?

[Divine Insight]

Would you really do anything to avoid Hellfire?

Yes.

In that case it's highly unlikely that you and I will agree on much of anything when it comes to concepts of morality.

[wiploc]

In that case it's highly unlikely that you and I will agree on much of anything when it comes to concepts of morality.

We don't have to agree. You took a stance, will you defend it? Can we figure out why we disagree, where our paths diverge?

Do you believe that a god could create an objective morality? If Jehovah said, "Thou shalt rape," would that be objective?

[otseng]

You have just suggested that God's message is "Clear enough". Yet you seem to be prepared that churches have it all wrong.

People are flawed. People are prone to follow habits and traditions and just go with the flow, even if the flow is not perfect. People have a herd mentality and often won't question the status quo. And if people do have questions, they often are not willing to challenge the system. Also, over time, organizations degrade. They lose their initial fire and purpose and become institutionalized.

Why should so many churches have it all wrong if the message is clear enough?

The basic message is salvation, not how churches should be run. There is no step-by-step guide on how churches should be patterned in the Bible.

I can see that the Bible is a story that proclaims that we are all in hot water with a God who expects us all to "repent" our evil ways. That part of the "message" is pretty clear.

But why should anyone believe such nonsense?

Do you know of anybody who is perfect and sinless? If there is such a person, there's then nothing that they need to repent of. In fact, they wouldn't need Jesus at all. If they do have any sin, then what is another way to absolve them of their sins?

Well, I certainly hunger and thirst for "righteousness", in fact, I actually reject the overall Christian religion precisely because I feel that it is totally "unrighteous".

The righteousness comes when all sins are absolved. It's not the Christian religion that makes someone unrighteous, but any sins that someone has committed.

Or will I be damned for not believing in Hebrew mythology or that Jesus was the demigod son of God?

Well, if you have another way to absolve your sins, then you don't need Jesus.

I reject Christianity and the Bible because it's an immoral mythology that preaches all manner of immoral principles.

For instance?

[instantc]

I reject Christianity and the Bible because it's an immoral mythology that preaches all manner of immoral principles.

It seems to me that you keep insisting that morality is purely subjective, while at the same time your arguments are based on the assumption that objective morals exist.

You wouldn't make this kind of statements about something that is truly subjective, like the taste of ice cream, would you? You wouldn't complain that Italy is such a terrible state because they don't produce the kind of ice cream that you happen to like, would you? If you did, the question would arise, why should someone else base their ice cream production on your personal taste? You would just accept it as an unfortunate incident that their taste of ice cream does not happen to correspond to yours. Similarly, if morality is truly a matter of subjective opinion, why should Yahwe or anyone else base their actions on what your personal opinion happens to be?

At this point, many relativists will say something along the lines of "it's my personal opinion that other people should not mistreat women, regardless of what they think". But, at this point the relativist has already accepted the objectivity of morality, for in effect he is then saying that it is his personal opinion that another person should do X, regardless of what that person thinks about the issue. Definition of objective morality is that people ought to do some things, regardless of what they themselves think about it.

[wiploc]

It seems to me that you keep insisting that morality is purely subjective, while at the same time your arguments are based on the assumption that objective morals exist.

You wouldn't make this kind of statements about something that is truly subjective, like the taste of ice cream, would you? You wouldn't complain that Italy is such a terrible state because they don't produce the kind of ice cream that you happen to like, would you? If you did, the question would arise, why should someone else base their ice cream production on your personal taste?

Well said!

[Divine Insight]

People are flawed. People are prone to follow habits and traditions and just go with the flow, even if the flow is not perfect. People have a herd mentality and often won't question the status quo. And if people do have questions, they often are not willing to challenge the system. Also, over time, organizations degrade. They lose their initial fire and purpose and become institutionalized.

Doesn't the Bible say that God places all those who are in authority? Surely if this holds at all it should hold within the institutions of God's own church. Wouldn't it then be blaspheme to challenge the authority of God's Church?

Given this all Christians should be Catholic and respect the words of Pope Francis as being the divine authority of God and they should also respect all the beliefs of the Catholic Church since it is the "Body of Christ".

All those who have protested against the Body of Christ and who have rejected the divinely ordained authority of the Pope are clearly rejecting the authority of God.

They should then be viewed as the "flawed people" who have rejected the authority of God in favor of rebelling and protesting against God.

Why should so many churches have it all wrong if the message is clear enough?

The basic message is salvation, not how churches should be run. There is no step-by-step guide on how churches should be patterned in the Bible.

But why should anyone believe this "Basic message"?

Why should anyone believe that there exist some God who is totally obsessed with the salvation of humans? The message of salvation is meaningless if it hasn't been made crystal clear why salvation is even required in the first place.

Moreover shouldn't there at least be a "step-by-step guide" on how to achieve salvation? The Christians can't even seem to agree on that.

As far as I'm concerned, even if Christianity is true I have already received salvation. I have done everything that is required of me to qualify for salvation within this religion. And I'm convinced that belief in Jesus is not even required because, as far as I'm concerned Jesus himself has said as much according to the Gospels themselves.

I can see that the Bible is a story that proclaims that we are all in hot water with a God who expects us all to "repent" our evil ways. That part of the "message" is pretty clear.

But why should anyone believe such nonsense?

Do you know of anybody who is perfect and sinless? If there is such a person, there's then nothing that they need to repent of. In fact, they wouldn't need Jesus at all. If they do have any sin, then what is another way to absolve them of their sins?

According to Jesus I am currently perfect and sinless. "Perfect" here only needs to refer to morality, nothing else. And yes I am perfectly moral. I'm at least as moral as Jesus was.

Also, having been a born again Christian I even officially repented from my childhood sins and asked Jesus to come into my life as he had promised to do. At that point in time and sins I may have had prior to that are forgiven, and Jesus is supposed to come into my life at that point and become my copilot. I cannot be blamed for his failure to keep his promises.

Also listen to what Jesus says according to Luke:

Luke 15:
[4] What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?
[5] And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing.
[6] And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost.
[7] I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

According to Jesus at least 99 out of every hundred people who go to heaven need no repentance. Otherwise what sense would it have made for Jesus to make a statement like this if every single human is a sinner who is in dire need of repentance?

If I'm going to believe that Jesus is a truthful demigod, then why not believe what he says? And if 99 out of every hundred people need no repentance, then I don't think it's too far fetched for me to believe that I'm one of the 99 rather than the one person who needs repentance.

Also, I don't feel guilty about anything, and I have total peace in my heart. I am totally prepared to die and "meet my maker" as they say. I have no reason to fear God. If Jesus turns out to be true I'm sure he'll give me a big hug and say to me, "Sorry, no party for you, you're just one of the mundane 99% of righteous people like most of the others here, too bad you weren't more rowdy we would have thrown a party for you! But come on in anyway."

I mean seriously, that pretty much what I would expect.

The idea that Jesus would have a bone to pick with me is utterly absurd.

Well, I certainly hunger and thirst for "righteousness", in fact, I actually reject the overall Christian religion precisely because I feel that it is totally "unrighteous".

The righteousness comes when all sins are absolved. It's not the Christian religion that makes someone unrighteous, but any sins that someone has committed.

I have absolutely no reason to believe that all my sins have not been absolved long ago.

Why people continue to use Jesus as an excuse to try to convince other people that they should be feeling guilty about something or that they aren't "righteous enough for Jesus" is beyond me. Is that what Christianity is about?

What Christianity appears to be all about to me is just a cult where the members refuse to respect anyone as being "righteous" unless they join their cult. And even then they seem to keep the members of their own cult feeling guilty even after they've joined.

Or will I be damned for not believing in Hebrew mythology or that Jesus was the demigod son of God?

Well, if you have another way to absolve your sins, then you don't need Jesus.

Jesus himself made it crystal clear to me in the Gospel rumors that I don't need him, and neither does anyone else.

Why should I accept your convoluted interpretations of these ancient myths? What's wrong with my interpretations?

Are you a Protestant by any chance? I sure hope not because you don't seem to respect Protestantism. I hope your Catholic. At least then you can be partially excused, except your really should be leaving it up to the Pope to tell people what they need to do to be "saved".

I reject Christianity and the Bible because it's an immoral mythology that preaches all manner of immoral principles.

For instance?

Do you really want me to go into that again? Surely you've heard my complaints enough times on these forums.

I'll just give you a brief bullet list.

• This God is an example that being mean and cruel to people is an effect and wise way to teach them something.
• This God even stoops to using procreation as a weapon of punishment.
• This God condones and supports male chauvinism.
• This God condones and support slavery.
• This God condones and supports beating a slave to within an inch of their life.
• This God condones stoning to death unruly children
• This God has confessed to all of humanity that he is a jealous God.
• This God seems to lust to be glorified.
• This God has no compassion for anyone who doesn't love him above all else.
• This God is inconsistent and therefore untrustworthy yet he demands that we trust him.
• This God once so hated the world that he drown out all the sinners.
• This God then claims to so love the world that he gives his only begotten son to save it.
• This God arranges to have his own corrupt priests brutally crucify his only begotten son.
• Then this God demands that we all must condone this crucifixion on our behalf lest we be damned.
• This God does not provide anyone a means of politely declining his selfish demands.

I think the last item is the most disgusting, as well as the greatest "Red Flag" that reveals this religion to be the superstitious man-made hoax that it is.

The very idea that there exists a supposedly righteous creator who only gives the following two options is itself absurd:

1. Do precise as he says and love him no matter what.
OR
2. Be tortured for eternity.

That's absurd.

Where's the reasonable 3rd option that any truly righteous God should be offering?

Why can people simply say to this God, "Thanks for the opportunity but I'm really not interested in living under your rules because I personally don't feel that they are very nice rules. So I would like to politely bow out and request to simply be peacefully un-created. No hard feelings from me, and there's really no reason for you to become upset or angry over this either. It's just isn't working out so can't we just part friends?"

There is no way to peacefully decline this offer. You can't politely reject this God. It's simply not an option in this religion. You can't even politely reject it accepting that it means permanent spiritual death. There is no way out of this this religion save for eternal damnation or becoming a completely obedient slave to this God.

I don't want either of these. But that option is not available.

Thus this did not come from any "all-righteous creator". It can only be a devious religious cult created by underhanded men.

A truly righteous creator would respect someone's choice to peacefully bow out without demanding that they "Deserve damnation for having rejected God".

That's the dead give-away right there Otseng. That's how we can know that this religion did not come from any righteous creator.

There is no option to politely bow out of it.

[Divine Insight]

I reject Christianity and the Bible because it's an immoral mythology that preaches all manner of immoral principles.

It seems to me that you keep insisting that morality is purely subjective, while at the same time your arguments are based on the assumption that objective morals exist.

I speak in terms of my subjective morality.

Perhaps I should have typed

"I reject Christianity and the Bible because IMHO, it's an immoral mythology that preaches all manner of immoral principles."

Because that's what I mean when I say that I feel that something is "immoral".

All I can do is state my opinion on the matter. That's all ANYONE can do.

The only people who would be exempt from this would be people who actually get all of their moral values from something like the Bible itself. But then they would need to support male-chauvinism, slavery, beating slaves to within an inch of their lives, and so on.

They must also agree that it's "moral" to curse women with greatly multiplied pain and sorrow in childbirth as a punishment.

They must also agree that it's "moral" to beat an totally innocent person to a pulp and nail them to a pole to make right all wrongs.

Yes, IMHO the Bible and Christianity is a highly immoral religion.

Your subjective opinion may differ.

In fact, evidently all Christians hold the subjective opinion that all the things the Bible teaches and supports are indeed moral. They have to agree with that lest they'd be agreeing with me that the Biblical God is immoral.

So yes, my opinions are just as subjective as anyone else's opinions.

You don't have to agree with my morality. Many people don't. I have to live in this world with these people.

But to me it's no different from the fact that I have to live in this world with wild apes too. Well, I don't live where there are any wild apes, but I do live where there are wild bears, mountain lions, rattle snakes, and biting insects. They don't share my subjective morality either. But I still manage to share planet earth with them.

I don't expect to ever see a day when everyone will agree with my subjective morality. I don't see the need for any objective morality. We have certainly never seen any indication that any such thing exists. Even religious people who claim to own the copyright on "objective morality" disagree with each other.

Where have you ever seen any indication of "objective morality"?

If you want to talk to me about objective morality I think you should need to produce this objective morality first.

The religious people point to their dogmas. But that's a real joke because those dogmas are filled full of things that almost every sane modern person would reject as being immoral anyway. Even the Christians are ashamed of the Old Testament. They may all manner of excuses for it.

The proclaim that it was for a "Different Time". Well duh, if it's no longer valid today then it couldn't be very "objective". So they confess that it's not objective when they use that excuse for it.

They also proclaim that Jesus brought a New Covenant of New Laws. But that has the same problem. If there are new laws then the old laws couldn't have been very 'objective'. Not to mention the fact that Jesus supposedly proclaims that he came not to change the laws, and that no one jot nor one tittle shall pass from law until heaven and earth pass. So that doesn't work anyway.

In fact, if Jesus told the truth about the jots and tittles then we should still be stoning our unruly children to death and that should be considered to be the "objective moral thing to do"

All morality is subjective opinion, and Hebrew mythology is no exception to the this truth.