I didn't mean to say that God's morality is subjective is an argument against the existence of God. Never-mind. You said what you are positing is your own definition. I am saying that it's the wrong way of thinking. And you see, it was you who brought in God into this discussion. I was only asking you to understand your epistemology, and bringing God in to that was your explanation of your epistemology. One does not need a God to exist to philosophically argue for an objective morality. Many atheists argue for objective morality. Like Michael Ruse. He says verbatim; "Morality is a bit like the laws of nature in that it exists outside me and I am subject to it". Do you understand that? This morality exists, and it is beyond me, and I am subject to it. That means objective morality exists. Forget God at this time.
As far as including God is concerned, we're in a thread that talks about the problem of evil, and God's existence, so it didn't seem unreasonable to follow that path. Nevertheless, we can exclude it from our discussion if you wish.
So some atheists argue for an objective morality, and you quote one. So far that's just an assertion. Once more, I can't defend my position if you don't show arguments for yours. Why is my position wrong? Not because Michael Ruse said so, at least until I know how he came to that conclusion. If you are not prepared to move beyond assertions, how can we have a discussion?
If Morality is purely subjective, there will not be an objective morality. There where do humans get their objective moral values? You gave some moral issue which I can't remember right now, but you said that most humans have it. If it's subjective, it will not be so. If there are rapists, humans consider rape immoral. That's objective morality. Saying this you seem to be a realist, but still you argue for type of relativism. That's conflicting. And the reason I asked you where the source of this morality is because in moral philosophy there is a huge discussion on naturalism and non-naturalism. You are a naturalist it seems, which would entail cold, hard truths about morality, and they remain objectively true, whether individual people choose to follow them or not. Rape being "bad" is objectively true, even if some people choose to not follow it. But that's objective morality. In non-naturalism, “bad” can’t really be defined or even quantified because it can’t be defined by words other than synonyms for itself. Is it intuitionism that you are proposing? Think about it. Don't think that these things are just to attack you. It's to understand your epistemology.
To repeat, my argument is that morality is subjective because it cannot be shown to exist outside the minds of sentient beings. Simple agreement between a majority of humans does not make that false. If rape is objectively "bad" and some people don't agree, then something must exist outside people's minds that establishes that objectivity. Can you show me that something? Why are you avoiding that question? If it's as obvious as you claim it shouldn't be difficult.
You've stopped the aggressive tone, for which I thank you. I think I've set out my argument plainly enough for you to understand it. If you want to convince me that I am wrong though, you'll have to offer more than just assertions that "morality is objective". Why is it objective?
I didn't say you "Invented the word value". I said you are bringing it, like you brought in the word "bad" which then you will have to define, which cannot be philosophically defined as I said above under your intuition argument because it conflicts with your subjective argument. I don't know if you have thought about it. There were societies that kill their parents. That's "Subjective morality"? It is a practice that members of the community, including the parents, take to be morally permissible and perhaps even morally required. So is Parricide moral because this community collectively found it moral? The reason I spoke of you "bringing in" new words like bad, value, etc for the discussion every time this is questioned is because it is just another word. E.g. Parricide is one societies "value". But it's not an objective value because you will not kill your parents for any reason. Neither will I. You misunderstood it to mean you invented the word "value". So it's a little demeaning to say that someone should refer the dictionary if the word value is not understood. It maybe that you didn't understand what was said. You should think that everyone in this forum will understand English, at at least the most basic level enough to know the dictionary meaning of the word 'value'.
Forgive my sarcasm about the dictionary. Look back to how you responded to see why I was a little irritated. I have to use words to convey my meaning. I used "bad" as an alternative to "evil" because that has religious connotations. "Value" is a subjective term that I chose for that very reason.
If people or societies develop a morality that (yes) values parricide, it's subjective to them. They may have valid reasons for that. You may be thinking of Inuits (in their original state) that would leave old people to die on the ice when there was a shortage of food, because they felt the survival of their children had more (yes) value to their tribe than those who have already lived most of their lives. It makes sense. We don't feel that way, no, but we are not faced with their situation. Both moral convictions are subjective by my definition.
It so happened that just a few days ago, another gentleman in this forum said that my English grammar is very bad and that my language does not seem to be English. Yet it so happened that the particular paragraph he was referring to as "Bad English" was a copy paste from one of the most recognised, English speaking, Phd educated, western philosophers in the whole world. So this person was ultimately saying that the most respected atheist philosopher in the world at the moment has "Bad English" and that "his language is not English".
It's not so much that your grammar is bad, but that you tend to phrase things differently from how a native English speaker would. One explanation would be that English is your second language, another that you are native to a country that speaks English but differently, like for example Pakistan. You could settle this easily by telling us where you live, but we have no right to demand that of you.
