Morality versus afterlife

[orangebox21]

If you're going to say the judge is God, then you need to explain why I should care about God's opinion and how this has anything to do with the wellbeing of life on Earth.

I've included two quotes but you should reread post #78.  This contention has been addressed but you have not responded to it.

I hear this a lot.  What do you mean by arbitrary?  Are you claiming that when God gave His commandments He did so on a whim and without reason?  Are you claiming that He didn't have a reason for telling a person to not murder another person, and that there is not any beneficial effect to obeying a command like that?

Would the world be better if there was no murder?  Yes.  Would the world be better if people were content with what they had and didn't covet?  Yes.  Would the world be better if no one was a false witness?  Yes.

 

If it doesn't have anything to do with wellbeing,

Can you honestly claim that you know what the Bible teaches, namely the ten commandments, and that there is no possibility that any of those laws have an effect on wellbeing?

then I would personally find it totally irrelevant.

Again, is personal incredulity reasonable?

You seem to be presenting a pretty common argument, that if morality is subjective, no one can ultimately be "right". You find this situation unacceptable. But your feelings about the situation, don't alter the facts.

No one is making the argument that if morality is subjective then no one can ultimately be right because this situation is unacceptable [against my feelings].  It's being claimed that the necessary logical conclusion of a subjective morality is illogical and inconsistent with reality.  It is illogical in that it uses personal opinion as the reasoning to determine the moral truth value of an action.  It is inconsistent with reality in that autonomy does not allow for the imposition of a moral system (a judicial system) from one person to another (see post #56 for more reading).  

I made a short video about this very subject a while ago, so I'll put it here again instead of repeating myself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LN-oKZIUeY

At 2:00 you say:  "the fact that you don't like it not being the case is not an argument."  I agree with you.  An argument from personal incredulity is not reasonable.  Yet, and you have admitted, this [personal opinion] is the very foundation by which you determine morality.

At 2:10 you say:  "if God doesn't exist then everyone makes up their own morality.... yeah that's exactly what happens."  Whether the argument has been properly explained to you or not I can't say [there are plenty of bad arguments on both sides], the claim is that if God didn't exist then there would be no basis for morality.  In other words, there wouldn't be a coherent ontology of morality neither would there be a way to make valid moral truth claims.

At 2:47 you say:  "your feelings about things is not a part of a sensible discussion."  Are you talking solely about emotions here?  It's hard to tell from your video how you're defining 'feelings.'  Are you including 'opinions' in the definition?  And I'm sure you can see where we would go from there.