I only believe objective morals can exist with the existence of god otherwise everything is subjective, so this is where the atheist is screwed. 9/11, the three standard perceptions you can have with the moral compass and lack therof is 1. Evil action. 2. just a action(good and evil doesn't exist) 3. good action. Whichever one you pick for your subjective truth there is still two delusions that you're subjectivelyperceiving on a subconscious level. When bypassing the usa law and going straight to the theory there is no chief in command to dictate the absolute answer so all 3 of these perceptions(even though they cancel each other out) are valid with the theory for the individual that wants to perceive it differently than you. All 3 of these perceptions are impossible to be wrong with the theory but you're perceiving two of the answers as delusions so this is a contradiction within itself. If there are two delusion that are compatible with your theory then it means you don't even believe the theory is 100% truthful 100% factual on subconscious levels. That's whats behind the atheist mask of fact, logic, reason, science, intelligence,.They are all sitting on a subjective truth accompanied by two subjective delusion on a subconscious level which means they don't even believe it, It's all a mask to deny god while playing dumb that god doesn't exist.

(February 6, 2018 at 6:21 am)Jazzyj7 Wrote: I only believe objective morals can exist with the existence of god otherwise everything is subjective, so this is where the atheist is screwed. 9/11, the three standard perceptions you can have with the moral compass and lack therof is 1. Evil action. 2. just a action(good and evil doesn't exist) 3. good action. Whichever one you pick for your subjective truth there is still two delusions that you're subjectivelyperceiving on a subconscious level. When bypassing the usa law and going straight to the theory there is no chief in command to dictate the absolute answer so all 3 of these perceptions(even though they cancel each other out) are valid with the theory for the individual that wants to perceive it differently than you. All 3 of these perceptions are impossible to be wrong with the theory but you're perceiving two of the answers as delusions so this is a contradiction within itself. If there are two delusion that are compatible with your theory then it means you don't even believe the theory is 100% truthful 100% factual on subconscious levels. That's whats behind the atheist mask of fact, logic, reason, science, intelligence,.They are all sitting on a subjective truth accompanied by two subjective delusion on a subconscious level which means they don't even believe it, It's all a mask to deny god while playing dumb that god doesn't exist.

What if I said objective vs subjective is the wrong argument when it comes to whether or not God is needed or even possibly employed for morality at all (whether as absolute grounding or absolute dictator)?

Your "objective morals" are as subjective as my subjective morals.

Worse your morals come from an unquestioned authority, whereas mine come from years of thought, observation and reflection, some my own some from others but every bit of it sieved and examined for value.

Apart from the convoluted 3 precepts in the OP, objective morals cannot exist because at the end of the day, a (subjective) mind is needed to make a decision about moral precepts.

For example, if I say that stealing is wrong, where do I get that moral precept from? Experience? Some unspoken authority? It doesn't matter if it is either, because after both considerations, I have to decide for myself if I want to follow the moral precept, meaning I have to decide for myself if it is a moral thing to follow, a given authority or simply experience notwithstanding.

This is why I say that people are moral regardless of what authority says, because it's an wholly internal metric, regardless if you find it in a book or if you have arrived at that conclusion via experience. I just think that getting there with experience is more valid than if you just get it handed from some external source, like an authority.

Yes! It took an objective god based moral compass to conduct the 9-11 attacks.

(February 6, 2018 at 7:12 am)chimp3 Wrote: Yes! It took an objective god based moral compass to conduct the 9-11 attacks.

And let us never forget that 9-11 was a faith-based initiative. 

Boru

(February 6, 2018 at 6:21 am)Jazzyj7 Wrote: I only believe objective morals can exist with the existence of god otherwise everything is subjective, so this is where the atheist is screwed. 9/11, the three standard perceptions you can have with the moral compass and lack therof is 1. Evil action. 2. just a action(good and evil doesn't exist) 3. good action. Whichever one you pick for your subjective truth there is still two delusions that you're subjectivelyperceiving on a subconscious level. When bypassing the usa law and going straight to the theory there is no chief in command to dictate the absolute answer so all 3 of these perceptions(even though they cancel each other out) are valid with the theory for the individual that wants to perceive it differently than you. All 3 of these perceptions are impossible to be wrong with the theory but you're perceiving two of the answers as delusions so this is a contradiction within itself. If there are two delusion that are compatible with your theory then it means you don't even believe the theory is 100% truthful 100% factual on subconscious levels. That's whats behind the atheist mask of fact, logic, reason, science, intelligence,.They are all sitting on a subjective truth accompanied by two subjective delusion on a subconscious level which means they don't even believe it, It's all a mask to deny god while playing dumb that god doesn't exist.

You fail because you start out with "I only believe" and what you believe is wrong. Back to the drawing board.

I think this could be a shit and run.

William, is that you?

(February 6, 2018 at 6:21 am)Jazzyj7 Wrote: I only believe objective morals can exist with the existence of god otherwise everything is subjective, so this is where the atheist is screwed. 9/11, the three standard perceptions you can have with the moral compass and lack therof is 1. Evil action. 2. just a action(good and evil doesn't exist) 3. good action. Whichever one you pick for your subjective truth there is still two delusions that you're subjectivelyperceiving on a subconscious level. When bypassing the usa law and going straight to the theory there is no chief in command to dictate the absolute answer so all 3 of these perceptions(even though they cancel each other out) are valid with the theory for the individual that wants to perceive it differently than you. All 3 of these perceptions are impossible to be wrong with the theory but you're perceiving two of the answers as delusions so this is a contradiction within itself. If there are two delusion that are compatible with your theory then it means you don't even believe the theory is 100% truthful 100% factual on subconscious levels. That's whats behind the atheist mask of fact, logic, reason, science, intelligence,.They are all sitting on a subjective truth accompanied by two subjective delusion on a subconscious level which means they don't even believe it, It's all a mask to deny god while playing dumb that god doesn't exist.

God handing down rules doesn't make morals objective. Because then it's just his opinion. Yeah, morals are subjective. There are some things that are commonly agreed to be good ideas, yet every society makes exceptions for. Killing? Well, killing in self defense isn't likely to land you prison time. No matter what you're talking about, there will be some people who think differently, and believe it's a good idea. Slavery? Wonderful for the slave owners. No real downside for them.

I don't really understand the rest of your post. I mainly wanted to say that the argument thta morality comes from a god isn't an argument for objective morals. It doesn't matter whose opinion of right and wrong it is. If morality comes from the dictate of an individual, it is subjective.