(October 4, 2018 at 11:03 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:(October 4, 2018 at 9:42 am)Grandizer Wrote: And yet you apparently behave otherwise. You believe morality stems from God, but that's not objective morality. That's arbitrary "morality" (if you can even call it morality). That's obeying decrees and commandments.
It's clear you have a set of scripted answers to some remarks made by us atheists that you have learned from Sunday school and by watching William Lane Craig debates, but for some reason, you still are unable to address certain arguments made by some of us with regards to divine morality. You are all too happy to criticize objective morality in the absence of your god, but fail to acknowledge the issues with divine morality itself.
You do not seem to be using objective in the same sense that I’m discussing. If where not talking about the same thing (as in what the way the moral argument is meant), then we are having different discussions, and not going to get very far.
That's irrelevant, dude. The argument is that the morality that you call "objective" isn't worth having because it really is arbitrary. You can call it "objective" all day, and I'll be happy to grant you that all you want, but it's not a meaningful kind of morality.
It's basically the Euthyphro dilemma I'm describing. Nothing too advanced. But not surprised if you're not ready to address it. So whatever, you do your thing. Dodge away, and have a good vacation.
