Christian morality delusions

[The Grand Nudger]

Earlier you stated something along the lines of societal morality could be a type of objective morality.

I did, yes, because there's nothing preventing a society from aligning itself with an objective morality.

We follow laws because they're objectively defined by our society with comparison to us. It is our subjective choice to follow those laws or not and our subjectively moral interpretation whether they are  "good or bad". If there is a problem with a distinction or definition of personal morality and societal morality please let me know.

We have subjective and disparate motivation to follow any moral schema, objective or not.  A persons personal morality can, like a societal morality, align itself with an objective moral schema.

The rest is a misrepresentation. I never stated that societal or personal morality was bad, just that it was not sufficient for objective measurement because of it's fails through history. I'm certain you used the term "think" unintentionally as you obviously feel I'm not thinking at all. I was positing that a moral objective authority would be better than a societal and subjective morality. I wasn't arguing the nature of said moral authority, or via for compliance with any such authority, just that a ruler measurement than a guesstimate.

I think..that you're thinking sloppily, not that you're not thinking at all. More importantly, I can (and have) shown that to be the case.  


 OFC the things that society tells us to do is an insufficient objective measure..but no more or less so than the things a god tells us to do or the things that any other rando tells us to do.  Nevertheless, it's possible for a society to tell us not to do x for some objective reason.  For example..our society tells us that waltzing over to the neighbors yard and beating him to death is wrong because of the harm it causes.  This harm is no mere opinion...not of society, not of a god, and not of any individual...though, obviously, we all have opinions about it.  

As I've been explaining, your use of every one of these terms is not consistent with their very definitions.  Societal morality is not made "other than objective" on account of it being societies morality.  Morality is not made subjective on account of people having opinions about it, either.  And some being or entity is not made an objective moral authority on account of it existing, or existing outside of and before all the reast of it;s creation.  

That's not how any of this works.  

again with the "believe" .. how tiresome... history is rife with problems with societal morality ie. slavery, witch hunts,crusades, women's rights, I'm sure there's more.

OFC it is, but moral failure is not in and of itself a barrier to the existence of an objective morality or proof that every moral proclamation -is- an example of moral failure.  The christian god is a moral failure..and yet we can still contend that there is an objective moral standard in a universe in which it exists. Repeat again with societies and people. Referencing the moral failures of the past..a huge portion of which have to do with the various gods people have believed in...is just a case in point.

There is, again..just the one thing involved in objective morality. Are there mind independent facts of a moral matter. No matter where we find those..in societies morality, in a persons morality, in the morality of a god...they would be examples of an objective morality. That is -the- objective moral standard. That's the entire premise of objective morality. Would it be nice to have that? Yes, I think so..and I think that we do, even if we don't have a perfect score when it comes to working that out..or, even when we do, acting in accordance with it...and even if possessing it might cause shittiness, at times...like those instances that I point out that the christian god is a moral failure.