Moral absolutism debates. Ugh.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The fact that morality is relative is made obvious even by Christian doctrine, which draws lines between things like the genocides their god is alleged to have committed, and the genocides they're happy to deprecate.

They're all too happy to mention the millions killed by Stalin as "evidence" that atheism leads to immorality, but refuse to consider the billions their god has killed as evidence of the same. But the fact that the morality of those genocides is relative to 1) who commits them and 2) who is victimized by them is evidence, in the behavior of the very same Christians touting moral absolutism, that morality is relative.

Sucks to be them.

[dyresand]

We are all moral in our own ways. The thing is with religion it tries to have a forced morality of black and white it doesn't work like that.
We all have our own flavors of morality mine being Neapolitan being the best of all 3 worlds.

[robvalue]

To theist:

"I'm thinking of smashing your little kid's face in with this hammer. Can you tell me whether that is moral or not, or do you need to go look it up in your objective moral table?"

[RobbyPants]

Robby, have you ever listened to the podcast Reasonable Doubts? The guys on there often deal with the topics of morality and the psychology behind religion. The podcast is a bit dry to the ear (I like dry humor, so, yay) but it's extremely informative and interesting. Justin Schieber often does debates on just these topics and knows a lot about philosophy. They might be able to help you out in these situations.

No, I haven't heard of it before. I should look into that for the commute, since I mostly listen to talk radio, anyway.

[thesummerqueen]

Robby, have you ever listened to the podcast Reasonable Doubts? The guys on there often deal with the topics of morality and the psychology behind religion. The podcast is a bit dry to the ear (I like dry humor, so, yay) but it's extremely informative and interesting. Justin Schieber often does debates on just these topics and knows a lot about philosophy. They might be able to help you out in these situations.

No, I haven't heard of it before. I should look into that for the commute, since I mostly listen to talk radio, anyway.

Their backlist of episodes is highly recommended.

[robvalue]

The idea of morality being based on "sin" is stupid. Sin is meant to be things god dislikes, or upset him or make him angry. There are all human traits, and shouldn't apply to a god.

[DeistPaladin]

A few important points:

Definitions Straightened Out

• "Objective" by definition means "free from anyone's opinion's or values"
  
• "Morality" is a system of values.
  
• Ergo, "Objective Morality" is an oxymoron.
  
• Ergo, even if it wasn't an oxymoron, God couldn't establish "Objective Morality" because God, by definition, is a being and doing so, by definition, would be using opinions to establish said system of Objective Morals. 
  

What's Your Point Again? How Does This Prove God?
So your line of reasoning is apparently:

1. "Without God, there would be no Objective Morals"
   
2. "With no Objective Morality, then anything goes, even rape, murder, slavery, etc."
   
3. "That would be bad."
   
4. "I don't want to live in that world."
   
5. "Therefore, God exists because I want it to be that way."
   

This is a classic Appeal to Consequences fallacy. 

Conflation Fallacy: "Subjective" Does Not Necessarily Mean "Relativism"
Not all subjective evaluations are equal. Some are based on facts while others are just bare assertions. This is why we debate subjective values and opinions at all. If it were not so, there would be no point to any discussion of anything subjective. 

Therefore, "subjective morality" does not mean "anything goes". 

We can subjectively evaluate that certain things are "wrong" because of the damage they do, the impact they have, the freedoms they curtail, the intrusion on the lives of others, etc. We can logically argue and debate these things and call upon studies and other data to back up our assertions. There are many tools we have used by philosophers from Bentham's Utilitarianism to Rawl's Veil of Ignorance to Mill's Social Contract. I can go into much further detail but I trust I've made my point. 

The fact that we can have this discussion at all underscores just how vapid the Christian apologists are when they insist on this simplistic false dichotomy of "either personal God or anything goes". Having a "personal God" doesn't get them Objective Morals and lacking a God doesn't mean anything goes. 

Euthyphro's Dilemma

1. Is something good because God wills it? -OR-
   
2. Does God will something because it is good?
   

If God wills something because it is good, then goodness exists outside of and independent of God. God could not command bad things to be good. Therefore, bad would remain bad even if God said otherwise, went away or turned out not to exist after all. Therefore, the existence of God is irrelevant to our discussion of morality.

If things are good because God wills them to be so, then "morality" is nothing more than God's arbitrary fiats and this is nothing more than "might makes right." Hardly a good basis for morality.

The "solution" posited by Christians at this point is to babble nearly incoherently of both-yet-neither. Like their Trinity, they want their cake and to eat it too. They'll say something along the lines of "goodness is the very substance of God" or "God is the very substance of goodness" or some other inscrutable babble. This attempted escape is thick with logical fallacies, from bare assertions to question begging. 

Hope this helps. 

---

Continued from above...


...And Then We Crack Open The Bible...
So if your god is so great at determining right and wrong, whether by judgment or arbitrary fiat or some woo-ish being-the-substance-of-goodness-whatever-that-means, then why does your god's Holy Word fail so miserably at even moral no-brainers?


The Bible has rules for slavery, how to buy and sell slaves, how to beat your slaves, how to rape your slaves, etc. During their campaign into "The Promised Land" the servants of your god were told to murder and enslave and take their women for themselves. The Bible has many laws that would be considered barbaric by modern sensibilities. The Bible fails miserably to establish either democracy or equality, instead supporting the Divine Right of kings and perpetuating the subjugation of women. 


The Christian will at this point tie themselves into knots coming up with the most obtuse interpretations and dismissing you as a "fundy atheist". What they're doing is starting with the conclusion (the Bible is good) and then reading the verses with that preconception and interpreting them accordingly in a classic act of Confirmation Bias. 


The fact that they interpret so intensely underscores that the starting point for them is not "I will follow the Bible" but "I have a conscience and want to believe that the Bible is good". This brings us back to subjective morality. 


The Same Way You Do
Christian, when you're determining what's right and wrong, do you really say, "hold on, let me check my Bible"? Unlikely. You have a conscience. You have a sense of empathy. You have a sense of fair play that works within the Social Contract. This is why you consider rape, slavery and murder to be wrong. We "get our morals" from the same place you do. 


Some, as C.S. Lewis, showcase this innate sense of right and wrong to be a sign that God exists. If this is so, that such innate senses are from God, than as an atheist who follows your conscience, are you not then doing the will of God?


*Drops mic and walks offstage*