Why "mysterious ways" don't matter.

[SteveII]

I never said that morality ceases to exist without God. I said objective morality ceases to exist without God because without the possibility of a transcendent being, everything about our experience is subjective--including any moral code we have evolved.

That's exactly what I said: you're proposing a moral system that disappears without god involved, which is subjective by definition, and then attempting to call it objective, which it isn't, in an attempt to make it seem more important than it is. If it vanishes without god, then it's a subjective morality based on god's opinions, and not an objective one. Why should I care what god's opinions on morality are, where they conflict with my lived experiences in a world he won't even deign to enter for a second?

So, you believe that the only system of moral values that we have is subjective and is therefore a matter of opinion. And these common sense opinions, when shared by a large group of people, can be relied on to form a system of morality that we can all live with.

This only serves to create a list of acceptable/unacceptable behaviors. If someone disagrees with the current crowd-sourced list of acceptable behaviors, say, women are not mere objects to own [insert any objectionable act here] there is nothing inherently wrong with that--just that either he has move to a different part of the world or lobby for his position until enough have changed their minds it becomes the new norm.

Or, are you going to say that western civilization has hit on the best list of acceptable behaviors and the middle east's list, African list, the far east's list or some other tribe in the Amazon's list is somehow inferior? It can't simply be a numbers thing (we are outnumbered by other cultures). It can't be a "more or less good" scientific yardstick like Sam Harris believes (because science tells us what is and not what ought to be).

If you do admit that other cultures are perfectly justified in creating their varied lists of acceptable/unacceptable behaviors, then that will bring up the question of why someone in our society should be held to our list?

We DO perceive that objective moral values and duties exist. Why would we not trust this perception? We perceive myriads of other things and trust those perceptions. Because naturalism can't be the cause? Isn't that a genetic fallacy?