The Moral Argument for God

[Vincent]

And just to be clear, if the Nazis had won the war, killing six million Jews and a couple million other folks would be okay in your view because might makes right? Correct?

This explains Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and other atheist regimes, does it not?

I like how you're trying to paint me the villain in this situation - "would be okay in your view ", "other atheist regimes".

I do not support or endorse genocide. I find it terrible and disgusting. 

However, the men who served under Hitler thought it was okay. They thought it was justified and moral. And funnily enough, they had the words "God with us" written on their belts, so please don't try to turn this into some atheist-bashing shit as you are hinting at doing, especially considering that Stalin and Mao acted the way they did out of desire for political and financial power, and not because of their religious views. 

Anyway, back to the point. To the Nazis, killing Jews was an act of morality. So for them, in that place, at that time, it became moral. Because humans make what is moral moral themselves. I am not talking about what I feel about the situation. I am not talking about what other countries felt about it. I am referring only to the Nazis. They killed innocent people, and they called it moral, so it was moral. And in the very very very unlikely event that the Nazis had won the war and conquered the entire civilized world, and in the event that they continued to execute Jews and other minorities and in the very unlikely event that they recruited people from America and England to kill them in their own respective countries, and in the event that those individuals had a way of justifying that to be moral, then it becomes moral. Not because I agree with it. Not because you agree with it. But because morality is defined as the principles that we as humans create concerning distinction between right and wrong. So if a group says, "yes, this is moral" then that is the morality they have created. Does the thought that morality is flexible rather than fixed disturb you? Sorry. But it's the truth. 

Let me explain this more to you. Slavery in America. 200 Years ago, an American might have thought the institution completely moral, and justified it to himself by saying that blacks are property and not people. But now, from your perspective of 200 years in the future, you consider slavery to be immoral. And because there is not a rule created by the universe saying "slavery is immoral" or "slavery is moral", then there is no objective way of saying it is right or wrong. Back then it was moral. Now it is not. Because morality is relative. Take a small child from its mother and transport it back to the early 1800s. Let it be raised by a wealthy plantation family in the south. What will happen to that child? Most likely it will grow up a slaveowner, and feel no guilt for it. But how, when the child had been born in the 21st century, where slavery is immoral? It is because morality depends on circumstances, on culture, and on what society itself thinks, not on what is objective fact. 

Another example. Suppose there was some apocalyptic event like a zombie apocalypse. And suppose we all went into hiding. Now, imagine there's this group of young men who get stuck in a house or fort or whatever together. It's safe there. They can't leave. Imagine they're there for a solid couple months. And imagine this young girl shows up, looking for shelter. And these guys, having not been able to indulge their sexual urges and having been exposed to only males for an extended period of time, find it completely moral to have nonconsensual sex with this girl. She is 16. So right there you got rape and child abuse. But think. To THEM, it is moral, given their circumstances. They see it as "gotta do what you gotta do", and thus it becomes moral. Not objectively moral, mind you, but subjectively moral to them. All morals we have in civilized society (i.e. don't rape, don't steal, don't kill) are dependent on culture and circumstances. But if something falls out of balance, if we don't have enough resources or there's overpopulation or an apocalypse scenario, those morals will change, loosen, and allow people room to do things they might not have previously done. And so morality changes. Because it is subjective. 

I don't think you have a clear understanding of the difference between something being objective and subjective. The definition of objective is "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts." This is something that is fact, something that has always and will always be so, no matter the culture or time period, no matter if humans walk the Earth or go extinct. An example of this is 2+2=4. No matter where in the world you go, or how far back you go in time, if you have two things and you add two more, you will have four. This is objectivity. Always true. And that truth is free from personal opinions on the matter. 

Now, the definition of subjective is "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions." Now ask yourself this: where do our morals come from? They come from us as humans. We decide them based on our personal feelings. At the present time in our society, we feel murder to be wrong not because it is objectively so, but because we reason that it harms others, and we feel that to be bad. And if you go back in time, other cultures found killing others to be permissible and moral. Other cultures found rape and child abuse moral as well. But if these things are to be "objectively" moral, then they have to be moral all the time, for everyone, no matter the culture or time period or circumstance. But they are not. Morality is not the same as 2+2=4. Because morality is entirely dependent on situation and time period, and not on objective fact. A man-made concept can never be objective. The best we can hope to reach is universal subjective morality.