My views on objective morality

[bennyboy]

I want to know what you think morality is, and why you think it's objective. We're 100 pages in, and you've not really bothered (so far as I can see) to explain either of those things-- things which I would have expected to be done on the 1st page of any thread, ideally in the OP.

Here, let me give you an example.  I think morality is a communal agreement about which behaviors are or aren't desirable.  They represent a balance between our instincts (for example the instinct to protect loved ones) and the evolution of various cultural ideas (for example, religious ideas about God).  I believe this because some morals (like the protection of children) are consistent across most cultures, while others (like views on homosexuality) are radically different.  I'd argue this is because most people have instincts for/about children, but we do not have instincts about sexual alignment. My evidence for this is that North American culture just a few decades ago was massively against homosexuality, but now is much less so-- in such a short time, the instincts of people could not have changed (that takes thousands or millions of years), so it is only ideas which have changed.

See?  I have ideas, can explain my reasons for holding them, and can even provide some evidence supporting my reasons.  


Okay, now it's your turn. . . *begins holding breath*  

I feel like I have already addressed this though. 

I don't have some sort of alternate definition for the word "Morality". By its dictionary term, it is defined as "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior." I'm on board with this and wouldn't define it any differently. The objective part is my belief that God has established between what is "right and wrong, and good and bad", and it is a real distinction. Not a matter of opinion.

(Off topic here for a second, I don't like the condescending/rude way you talk to me. I'll probably stop responding because I don't enjoy talking to someone who is consistently rude to me. Sorry, just not in the mood.)

If you feel I'm being rude, please consider this.  We are over 100 pages into this thread made by you about objective morality, and you still haven't explained why you think morality is objective.  I don't think I was rude while you avoided supporting your beliefs with reasons or supporting evidence for like the first 60 pages, but at this point I feel I'm justified in pressing a little.

You say God made objective morals.  Why do you think God is real, and why do you think He has made objective morals?  Do you even HAVE a reason for believing these things? See, my "condescending" post was designed to show how ideas, reasons, and supporting evidence can clarify one's position.

Here's what I think. I think the reason you don't answer my question is that you don't have an answer-- you don't HAVE any logical reason to believe in God, or any evidence that He exists, much less that He has made an objective moral code. I think you are blaming me for condescension because it allows you to dodge the responsibility of the OP of a thread to support his/her ideas, and still come up smelling like roses.