My views on objective morality

[robvalue]

Personally, I think this comes down to the argument from discomfort, whenever I've discussed this with any theist.

If there is no objective morality, there is no concrete right and wrong. I don't like that conclusion.

Darkmatter said it like this (and Whateverist gave a cool new version )

"Are things good because God says they are good, or are the things God says are good actually good?"

In the first case morality is arbitrary, and in the second god's involvement is irrelevant. It's trying to work it so that morality is about being a good person and following what God says; but I want to know what difference the second criteria makes. Does this cause any deviation from the first part, or not? Is religion just for psycopaths who need to be told exactly how to act?

Why is there 40,000 sects of Christianity, all with their own different objective morality? What use is that to anyone? And that's before you even move on to all the other religions. It seems God has utterly failed to deliver the message, or created us in such a way that it's impossible we can interpret it.

Which sect is a clueless psycopath supposed to choose? What religion? Their choice is subjective, as will be their eventual "morality".

http://youtu.be/6LN-oKZIUeY