How much pain can atheists withstand ?

[The Grand Nudger]

It's extremely clear how an objective morality is defined regardless of whether or not I'm right about there being one.  Sure, some objective moral values or statements take more disicipline, consideration, or information to arrive at than -any- subjective moral value...but is that a problem? 

Yeah, it absolutely is a problem. It's a plain fact that disciplined, well-informed and intelligent people disagree about the morality of all kinds of issues. How to decide, then, whether X is right or wrong ? 

A little remainder here : we're assuming God exists for the sake of this discussion, the contentious issue is whether to listen to God, or to people disagreeing with each other for futile reasons. I think the answer should be clear already.

You could, you're right, insist that I don't have any way to access a moral fact.  That's not really a theist thing, believing in fairies doesn't grant you any special ability or credibility on that count, lol. 

It's true that I don't have more access to facts than you do. But my worldview has a coherent way to assess the morality of facts : follow God's instructions, yours doesn't.

You might ask: then what are God's instructions ? I think they are clear once you read the major religious scriptures : the new testament (the christian scripture), the koran (the muhammadan scripture) , the torah (the old testament), etc. that they have a kernel of religious truths that can plausibly be ascribed to God.

A few, I'd like to think.  No curbstomping the neighbors infants, for example.  Don't eat things alive asshole first.  That sort of stuff.

For all we know, there may be some counter-intuitive set of facts that makes curbstomping the neighbor's infant a good deed. I can't readily imagine one, but there might be, theoretically.

People disagree about all sorts of things.  People might even disagree about a the sum of two numbers.  That doesn't mean that there isn't a correct answer.  The metrics for which answer in a disagreement over addition is not...for example..whatever a god says it is.  You can assume god exists if you like, but that assumption won't tell you the correct answer to two plus two and it won't not be 4 just because someone else..a god, for example, says it's fish.  A gods existence or nature or actions is as irrelevant to objective morality as it is to any other objective system.

As for coherent ways to address situations in which you're personally ignorant by your own admission.  Sure, always doing whatever god did or told you to do when you find yourself incompetent is coherent, but that doesn't mean it's moral.  Being coherently and consistently immoral could easily satisfy the conditions of being coherently and consistently deferent to your silly gods.  They do have a habit of saying and demanding immoral shit, after all.

You insist that gods instructions are clear.  Good for gods instructions, I guess, but are they moral? Because if they aren't..then they're clear, and immoral.  Clearly...immoral.

As far as there being Some Thing™ which makes curbstomping babies a good thing.. I read that as a "yeah..that looks pretty fucking bad, must be something that makes it not bad, not that I can fucking think of it". You've conceeded the moral concern is valid -and- insisted that there's no way for us to resolve the apparent issue. I'm just gonna stick with my own moral appraisal here. It's apparently bad and we both see that, and since I can think of no way it wouldn't be, and you can think of no way it wouldn't be.....not curbstomp infants. Even if some silly god told me to.

But here we are, with a person who tried to claim objective moral values for their gods and their allegedly clear and certainly subjective hereby decrees..... now advocating for the moral ambiguity of baby stomping. What else do you think is morally ambiguous?