Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[RoadRunner79]

I keep being accused of misunderstanding.  So I want to make sure I address you properly.   Are you trying to change the subject, or is this a poisoning the well attempt?   I believe that you hold to a subjective ontology of morality, so are you judging on the correct basis, or do you think that you are the basis?

I have been at debate online since 01, and long ago I learned that a theist always has an end game. You will try in this thread to argue you are not trying to convince anyone your God exists, then argue in another thread, or start another thread, here or on another website that he does exist. Now, do yourself a favor, if you buy the Christian bible, and view it as your source of morality, then stop trying to dodge it.

Does your paranoia also think that my posting in the Dr. Who thread is just a big ruse?  I'm still not very impressed with your mind reading by the way.   Now earlier in this thread, I did enter in, to correct some misconceptions about the moral argument and objective morality.  Then the topic changed, and I stayed in, to have an interesting and reasoned discussion.  To maybe open up to new ideas, that I had not thought of before, or perhaps to do the same for others.

And even though I'm not really aiming towards your imagined end game or have some hidden plan; even if I was, my motivations, have no bearing on reasonable discussion.  It doesn't change the rational conclusion.  And I don't care how long you have been debating.  Do you have something that you would like to add to the discussion at hand?   Because this seems more of an attempt to close down reason and discussion!

---

It's ok,..as long as no harm is done or intended right?  We could also return to harm, that is not immoral if you like.  If you want to discuss, I would suggest that you cut out the sophism, and try reasoning through it.  You don't get to immoral through harm alone (it may not even be present). Correlation does not imply causation, or mean that it is the basis.

Yeah, if no harm is done or intended, it's not even a moral consideration.  Your hypothetical was not an example of no harm being done..or of no harm being intended, but of a person who did not want to get caught intentionally doing that which causes harm.... so? 

He was trying to keep his wife from harm.  Would that be moral under your axiomatic basis of harm? 
Can you please explain in the example where the harm or intention to harm was to meet your basis?