WLC's Moral Ontology Argument

[Phillysoul11]

I'm sure you guys have heard this one, just wondering what types of flaws you see in it?

for those who do not know what I'm talking about this

If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist. To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so. It is to say, for example, that Nazi anti-Semitism was morally wrong, even though the Nazis who carried out the Holocaust thought that it was good; and it would still be wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them. And the claim is that in the absence of God, moral values are not objective in this sense.

Many theists and atheists alike concur on this point. For example, the late J. L. Mackie of Oxford University, one of the most influential atheists of our time, admitted: "If . . . there are . . . objective values, they make the existence of a God more probable than it would have been without them. Thus, we have a defensible argument from morality to the existence of a God." 8 But in order to avoid God's existence, Mackie therefore denied that objective moral values exist. He wrote, "It is easy to explain this moral sense as a natural product of biological and social evolution . . . ."9

Michael Ruse, a philosopher of science, agrees. He explains,

Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says "love thy neighbor as thyself," they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction . . . And any deeper meaning is illusory.10

Friedrich Nietzsche, the great 19th century atheist who proclaimed the death of God, understood that the death of God meant the destruction of all meaning and value in life.

I think that Friedrich Nietzsche was right.

But we must be very careful here. The question here is not: "must we believe in God in order to live moral lives?" I'm not claiming that we must. Nor is the question: "Can we recognize objective moral values without believing in God?" I think that we can.

Rather the question is: "If God does not exist, do objective moral values exist?" Like Mackie and Ruse, I don't see any reason to think that in the absence of God, human morality is objective. After all, if there is no God, then what's so special about human beings? They're just accidental by-products of nature which have evolved relatively recently on an infinitesimal speck of dust lost somewhere in a hostile and mindless universe and which are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short time. On the atheistic view, some action, say, rape, may not be socially advantageous and so in the course of evolution has become taboo; but that does absolutely nothing to prove that rape is really wrong. On the atheistic view, apart from the social consequences, there's nothing really wrong with your raping someone. Thus, without God there is no absolute right and wrong which imposes itself on our conscience.

But the problem is that objective values do exist, and deep down we all know it. There's no more reason to deny the objective reality of moral values than the objective reality of the physical world. The reasoning of Ruse at best proves only that our subjective perception of objective moral values has evolved. But if moral values are gradually discovered, not invented, then our gradual and fallible apprehension of the moral realm no more undermines the objective reality of that realm than our gradual, fallible perception of the physical world undermines the objectivity of that realm. Most of us think that we do apprehend objective values. As Ruse himself confesses, "The man who says that it is morally acceptable to rape little children is just as mistaken as the man who says, 2+2=5."11

Actions like rape, torture, and child abuse aren't just socially unacceptable behaviorâ€"they're moral abominations. Some things are really wrong. Similarly love, equality, and self-sacrifice are really good. But if objective values cannot exist without God, and objective values do exist, then it follows logically and inescapably that God exists.

Also I just found out he will be debating Christopher Hitchens this April....

anyways, what is your assessment?

[VanReal]

I think it is evident that objective morality does not exist by simply looking at individual cultures and the difference in what those societies' people deem moral.  If there were objective morality there would be no debate over stem cell research, abortion, canabolism, meat eating, polygamy, gay marriage, animal rights, smoking the "ism", spanking kids, and the list goes on.  So, when there is even this kind of disagreement of morality among the same people (Christians for instance) how can objective morality exist?

I am looking at the last few paragraphs and the argument makes absolutely no sense.  There was a time, not very long ago, that our society did not think it was possible to rape your own wife, therefore having sex with her against her will was not morally wrong.  So, rape is not an objective immoral act.  Likewise with child abuse, I once wore a black and blue hand print on my face to school and not one teacher askes what happened or if I needed help.  So child abuse in itself is not an objectively immoral thing to do.  These arguments are lame and are definitely subjective.  (Not to mention both are okay according to God in the bible.)

I don't think there is one example a person can suggest that would be an absolute moral.

(Edited the first part of my statement due to being lazy and not reading the full OP, I thought the argument was against absolute/objective morality.  Then added a bit after taking the time to read.  Thanks to SSY I removed foot from mouth.   )

[SSY]

Absolute moral values do not exist. Back in our caveman days certain things were frowned upon ( like rape, incest, stealing ) as they were, in one way or another, disadvantagious to your survival and procreation, predisposition to these behaviors was then deselected from the genepool. Modern morality, as part of a society is much more complex, though they all have boundries about what one can and cannot do, that generally serve the same function as our pre-historic morals, namley giving you the best chance at survival, without pissing off others to the point where they kill you.

VanReal's astute observations show quite nicley that different cultures have different morals. An acient greek would have no problem buggering a 12 year old boy, yet these days, it's seen as a little more taboo. Us passing judgment on them for this misses the point entirley, as does his anaology to the holocaust. our morals are just as subjective as anyone elses, 100 years from now, people may look back on our laws as draconian and evil, who is to say which one is right? No one can be objective when it comes to morals, except god ( LOL ). Saying there must be a moral code, otherwise people will go round killing each other, is just an appeal to consequence.

His argument generally is crap, he says, if morals are absolute, they must come from god ( false ), and then, his argument for the existance of absolute morals is really, quite spectacular in its idiocy

But the problem is that objective values do exist, and deep down we all know it

That is literally one of the worst arguments I have ever heard.

His premise that only god could supply absolute morals is also wrong, if they do exist, why do they have to come from god?

[Phillysoul11]

Thanks so much for the responses,
The implications of a subjective and relative morality seem a bit harsh. If one does not believe in any sort of absolute moral standard than he or she has no right to impose their standard on anyone else. Who is there to say which side is right? in the example of Hitler, the Nazis thought that were doing the right thing, we didn't. if they had all brainwashed us into siding with them, would it then be right? if so, than who are we to ever tell anyone that what they are doing is "wrong"? when in fact it might be right? if morality is merely subjective, than on what basis does anyone ever tell the rapist what he is doing is wrong? is it merely wrong because I think so? because society decides it is? I don't know about you guys but when I see rape/murder/genocide ect. I would be intellectually deceiving myself if I claimed that these acts could ever be acceptable and moral.
meh, maybe thats just me

[Recusant]

1) Who is this "WLC" and where can I watch Hitchens rip him a new one?

2)

But if moral values are gradually discovered, not invented, then our gradual and fallible apprehension of the moral realm no more undermines the objective reality of that realm than our gradual, fallible perception of the physical world undermines the objectivity of that realm.

He seems to think that he can get away with putting words in Ruse's mouth.  Nowhere does Ruse say that "moral values are... discovered, not invented."

3) It seems that Christians (and their god) are moral relativists, too.  For literally hundreds and hundreds of years, following the word of that god as supposedly revealed in the Bible, Christians practiced slavery.  Yet now it's condemned.  Why?   If the eternal, objective morality says that slavery is allowed (if you follow certain rules as laid out in the Bible) then why stop it?  There are plenty of other examples where the so called eternal morality has changed, but I don't want to get tedious.

4) Why do we need a god to tell us what's right and wrong?  I think humans are quite capable of making moral choices without the scribblings of a group of superstitious wanderers in the desert from nearly two thousand years ago. (I'm assuming that like most Christians you will disavow much of the Old Testament, because it's eternal morality was updated by Jesus.)  In fact the main opponents of the Nazis (for their own reasons, to be sure) if you count the number of people they lost fighting Nazi Germany, were the "godless communists" of the USSR, and the role played by Christian churches during the Holocaust was not one of unequivocal opposition.

[VanReal]

Thanks so much for the responses,
The implications of a subjective and relative morality seem a bit harsh. If one does not believe in any sort of absolute moral standard than he or she has no right to impose their standard on anyone else. Who is there to say which side is right?

It's not one person's morality being right and another's being wrong, it's something that is generally or even loosely agreed to as part of being a society.  Without society and community there would be no need for morals at all.  Does a hermit living alone in his cave have a need for morals?

in the example of Hitler, the Nazis thought that were doing the right thing, we didn't. if they had all brainwashed us into siding with them, would it then be right?

I think this example is a confusion of what really happened during Hitler's reign.  This was not a moral issue or a moral objective, it was a misguided attempt to form a "master race" and the holocaust was not the beginning.  Plundering the jewish communities, using them as free labor, conducting inhumane experiments on them, and then getting rid of them after they were no longer needed was a mean to an end for them, not something they considered the moral thing to do.  (This was after the baby farm failures, experiments on their own people, a coup on current government and armed forces, and much other history.)  Because people do an evil thing does not mean that they think that act is moral, maybe they don't care.  The Nazis didn't think they were doing the right thing, they simply didn't care what they did to other people while trying to reach their objective.

This is like saying a sociopath that murders people and eats the victims believes he/she is doing a moral or "right" thing.  More likely the person could care less about morals and is doing what is primal and feels right to them regardless of morality.

if so, than who are we to ever tell anyone that what they are doing is "wrong"? when in fact it might be right? if morality is merely subjective, than on what basis does anyone ever tell the rapist what he is doing is wrong? is it merely wrong because I think so? because society decides it is? I don't know about you guys but when I see rape/murder/genocide ect. I would be intellectually deceiving myself if I claimed that these acts could ever be acceptable and moral.
meh, maybe thats just me

I think this kind of makes the argument.  If absolute/objective morals existed would any of the above have ever been deemed appropriate behavior?  Would this even be a viable argument if there were objective morals?

[Phillysoul11]

1) Who is this "WLC" and where can I watch Hitchens rip him a new one?

2)He seems to think that he can get away with putting words in Ruse's mouth.  Nowhere does Ruse say that "moral values are... discovered, not invented."

it seemed to me as though WLC was stating that the best Ruse's claim proves is that morality is discovered

WLC:"The reasoning of Ruse at best proves only that our subjective perception of objective moral values has evolved"

3) It seems that Christians (and their god) are moral relativists, too.  For literally hundreds and hundreds of years, following the word of that god as supposedly revealed in the Bible, Christians practiced slavery.  Yet now it's condemned.  Why?   If the eternal, objective morality says that slavery is allowed (if you follow certain rules as laid out in the Bible) then why stop it?  There are plenty of other examples where the so called eternal morality has changed, but I don't want to get tedious.

To understand the OT and the laws I think you need to have a pretty solid understanding of the mosaic law, its purpose and its functions...its a bit off topic IMO as I'm not discussing Christianity, only theism.
But if you want to talk about that maybe we could make another thread

[Phillysoul11]

It's not one person's morality being right and another's being wrong, it's something that is generally or even loosely agreed to as part of being a society.  Without society and community there would be no need for morals at all.  Does a hermit living alone in his cave have a need for morals?

I was using it as a small scale example but you could equally apply the same example to a society, what happens when one society come into conflict with another? is one side of the conflict ever in the right?

I think this example is a confusion of what really happened during Hitler's reign.  This was not a moral issue or a moral objective, it was a misguided attempt to form a "master race" and the holocaust was not the beginning.  Plundering the jewish communities, using them as free labor, conducting inhumane experiments on them, and then getting rid of them after they were no longer needed was a mean to an end for them, not something they considered the moral thing to do.  (This was after the baby farm failures, experiments on their own people, a coup on current government and armed forces, and much other history.)  Because people do an evil thing does not mean that they think that act is moral, maybe they don't care.  The Nazis didn't think they were doing the right thing, they simply didn't care what they did to other people while trying to reach their objective.

I'm not sure how you can say that the the genocide that took place was not a moral issue, if you claim it was bad than you take a moral position on it.

This is like saying a sociopath that murders people and eats the victims believes he/she is doing a moral or "right" thing.  More likely the person could care less about morals and is doing what is primal and feels right to them regardless of morality.

I think your analogy is flawed, a sociopath like the one you described has numbed himself to morality ect. I think a better analogy would be a terrorist, or a  crusader. Either one of these identities believes that the horrible things they do are moral. But are they? well I think its pretty obvious and everyone here would agree that the crusades and instances of terror like 9/11 were wrong, even though the people who carried them out thought they were doing right. If we think what they did was wrong merely because its our opinion, or the opinion of our society then it really isn't wrong. its just whatever one wants to believe it is. and arguing that 9/11 ect. was wrong is an opinion you should keep to yourself.

If absolute/objective morals existed would any of the above have ever been deemed appropriate behavior?  

not if what they did was objectively wrong.

[VanReal]

I was using it as a small scale example but you could equally apply the same example to a society, what happens when one society come into conflict with another? is one side of the conflict ever in the right?

If there is a conflict then that would be due to there being disagreement between what is moral/right.  So, if that conflict exists there is no absolute morality.

I'm not sure how you can say that the the genocide that took place was not a moral issue, if you claim it was bad than you take a moral position on it.

I may think it was immoral,  but the act itself was not necessarily something that the "doers" believed was moral or right.  Not every action that is performed is performed because the person doing it believes he/she is moral or right.

I think your analogy is flawed, a sociopath like the one you described has numbed himself to morality ect.

This would be true only if you are assuming he/she began with that moral compass.  If they never held that moral standing they would not be "numb" to it, it never existed for them.

I think a better analogy would be a terrorist, or a  crusader. Either one of these identities believes that the horrible things they do are moral. But are they? well I think its pretty obvious and everyone here would agree that the crusades and instances of terror like 9/11 were wrong, even though the people who carried them out thought they were doing right. If we think what they did was wrong merely because its our opinion, or the opinion of our society then it really isn't wrong. its just whatever one wants to believe it is. and arguing that 9/11 ect. was wrong is an opinion you should keep to yourself.

I'm not sure I understand the point here.  They certainly do not see these acts as immoral, while the victims do.  This conflict in itself proves that there is no absolute moral.

If absolute/objective morals existed would any of the above have ever been deemed appropriate behavior?  

not if what they did was objectively wrong.

What is an objective wrong?

[Phillysoul11]

If there is a conflict then that would be due to there being disagreement between what is moral/right.  So, if that conflict exists there is no absolute morality.

no,I'm saying that if conflict exists than either the one group, or the other group is wrong (or they could both be wrong)

I may think it was immoral,  but the act itself was not necessarily something that the "doers" believed was moral or right.  Not every action that is performed is performed because the person doing it believes he/she is moral or right.

that's why your analogy was a bad one, that sociopath did NOT think that what he was doing was right. But in my example Terrorists believe it is there moral obligation to do many of the things they do, they believe it is the right thing to fly airplanes into buildings in the name of Allah. They are either right in doing this, or wrong. Thats all I'm saying. If you do not believe in any sort of objective morality than what they are doing is neither good, nor bad. It is whatever we or our society decides.

This would be true only if you are assuming he/she began with that moral compass.  If they never held that moral standing they would not be "numb" to it, it never existed for them.

If they never had any sort of moral compass why should we condem such actions? why is the sociopath at fault for acting according to his instincts?

I'm not sure I understand the point here.  They certainly do not see these acts as immoral, while the victims do.  This conflict in itself proves that there is no absolute moral.

Again, all conflict proves is that both parties cannot be in the right. one of them, or both of them must be wrong. My point is that when you say one party is right, and the other is wrong you are basing that assumption off of something, whether it be your societies standards, your own personal standards or Gods standards. The only standard which could be absolute is the last of the three. Since you do not hold to objective morality you have no justification in claiming that certain things are right or wrong, since morality is mere opinion.

What is an objective wrong?

Anything that violates or is contrary to God's Standard (from a theists position anyways)
I think the Objective morality exists, and if you say it doesn't I think it is only wise to be consistent with your beliefs...thats all I'm after, consistency.

Everyone so far has claimed that morality is subjective. I am trying to point out the ramifications that believing such a statement entails.

[VanReal]

no,I'm saying that if conflict exists than either the one group, or the other group is wrong (or they could both be wrong)

If conflict exists then they are in disagreement of what is right or wrong, there is no way to determine which is right or wrong as it depends on the individuals in conflict.  If there was an absolute right or wrong then there would be no conflict because the side going against that absolute would be wrong.  When both sides believe they are right and the action/ideas are in conflict there can't be and objective right or wrong, it's subjective.

that's why your analogy was a bad one, that sociopath did NOT think that what he was doing was right. But in my example Terrorists believe it is there moral obligation to do many of the things they do, they believe it is the right thing to fly airplanes into buildings in the name of Allah. They are either right in doing this, or wrong. Thats all I'm saying. If you do not believe in any sort of objective morality than what they are doing is neither good, nor bad. It is whatever we or our society decides.

Correct.  It is a societal perception.

If they never had any sort of moral compass why should we condem such actions? why is the sociopath at fault for acting according to his instincts?

Because as a society the decision has been made that the action is not acceptible.  There are even laws of "moral turpitude" that in themselves are not necessarily "wrong" but as a society the conduct is considered immoral and unacceptiable, hence illegal.  It doesn't mean that the action itself is inherently or absolutely wrong/immoral but simply against what is accepted in that society.  (Drug trafficking would be an example in the US).

Again, all conflict proves is that both parties cannot be in the right. one of them, or both of them must be wrong. My point is that when you say one party is right, and the other is wrong you are basing that assumption off of something, whether it be your societies standards, your own personal standards or Gods standards. The only standard which could be absolute is the last of the three. Since you do not hold to objective morality you have no justification in claiming that certain things are right or wrong, since morality is mere opinion.

No, if you do not agree that morals are objective/absolute then that means they are always subject to opinion and are therefore something that the society, culture or subculture has determined as moral or immoral (right or wrong, bad or good, acceptable or unacceptable).  Ethical vegans will militantly argue that fishing as sport, for food, or farm fishing is cruel, torturous and devoid of compassion and morality.  Fisherman would be in exact opposition of this and feel that morally there is nothing wrong with fishing.

Anything that violates or is contrary to God's Standard (from a theists position anyways)
I think the Objective morality exists, and if you say it doesn't I think it is only wise to be consistent with your beliefs...thats all I'm after, consistency.

I have been nothing but consistent with my thinking that there is no absolute or objective morality.  There is no feasible example or instance in which nyone can argue that there is one without the consensus of a particular society.  If there was a standard moral code even from a God then those absolutes would be inherently known and consistent, there are none.  (There is not even a absolute/objective consensus of what is moral among people of the same faith, same church, praying to the same God, listening to the same Priest.)

Everyone so far has claimed that morality is subjective. I am trying to point out the ramifications that believing such a statement entails.

I hear the ramifications you are speaking of as "but no one would know what was right or wrong without an objective/absolute morailty from God" yet I have not seen one example of such a moral.  I am not saying that is what you are saying, just that it's what it sounds like to me.  You are saying that morailty is objective but are not providing an example of it that can't be refuted by a culture, group or society in disagreement with that.

[Recusant]

Thank you for your prompt reply to my post.

It seems clear that evolved ╘ discovered, and therefor, Ruse is not positing an objective morality as such and for Craig (thank you for elucidating his identity by the way) to claim that he is, at best, doing so, is a bit disingenuous.

I see that we are not discussing Christian morality, only theistic morality.  In that case, which of the hundreds (thousands?) of gods believed in by various groups of theists is the originator of objective morality?  I think the question is irrelevant.  Theistic morality posing as objective is a farce: just choose the god who suits you, and that ends up being subjective morality doesn't it?

Thank you for straightening me out on the difference between ontology and epistemology.  

 I still don't understand how morality  ceases to have meaning if it's not given by a god.  I don't think that "really wrong" (real world morality) and "objectively wrong" (god-given morality) are the same thing, but Craig insists that they are. "Objectively wrong," as in god-given morality simply does not exist, in my opinion, but that does not mean that there is no such thing as "really wrong."  In other words, why is a subjective morality inherent to human beings (which we know exists) in any way less than an  unproved (except by circular argument) objective morality imposed by some supernatural (once again, unproved) being?

I was going to ask if a god is above the morality that it promulgates, using your example of genocide as an objective wrong, and the supposed genocide of the whole human race except for one chosen family by YHVH as a clear example of that objective wrong, but I guess until you say that we actually are talking about Christian morality, that could be construed to be irrelevant.  It's clear though, by that example, that mythical beings are not subject to the same objective morality that real beings are, and therefor, to some extent even objective morality is subjective, eh?

[Phillysoul11]

If conflict exists then they are in disagreement of what is right or wrong, there is no way to determine which is right or wrong as it depends on the individuals in conflict.  If there was an absolute right or wrong then there would be no conflict because the side going against that absolute would be wrong.  When both sides believe they are right and the action/ideas are in conflict there can't be and objective right or wrong, it's subjective.

both groups cannot be right, just because one (or more) group has no knowledge of the "correct" absolute standard of morality does not mean that standard doesn't exist. My whole point is that just because someone believes their "cause" to be in the right doesn't mean that they are in the right. Our goal in life is to find truth, find out which "side" (if you will) of the conflict is in the right. It seems as though you are arguing for a relative truth and if this is the case we should be debating something else entirely.

Correct.  It is a societal perception.

Ok, now that I have a statement clearly showing that you believe morality to be the result of societies laws/interests ect. I can hopefully clarify what I'm trying to argue.
In short what i'm saying follows this basic outline
1)society "A" says that are acting morally and that society "B" is an immoral society
2)society "B" says they are acting morally and that society"B" is acting immoral
3)nothing/nobody can definitively say which society is acting morally/imorally,

if morality is based solely off of society (What is right/wrong is determined by our society)
and different societies have different standards of morality,
than we have no right to judge moral/immoral actions as doing so would be arrogant, and preposterous. Why should we somehow think that what we call moral, is moral, and what a terrorist calls moral isn't moral. If Morality is subjective, than we have no basis on which we can accuse the Hijackers or crusaders of doing wrong.

Because as a society the decision has been made that the action is not acceptible.  There are even laws of "moral turpitude" that in themselves are not necessarily "wrong" but as a society the conduct is considered immoral and unacceptiable, hence illegal.  It doesn't mean that the action itself is inherently or absolutely wrong/immoral but simply against what is accepted in that society.  (Drug trafficking would be an example in the US).

forgive me If I am taking you out of context but I am remembering correctly you stated that morality is based off of our society, now you claim that there are actions which society defines as wrong, which are not inherently immoral, it seems as though you are arguing that society and the decisions that society makes are not absolute, which I never claimed were.

I have been nothing but consistent with my thinking that there is no absolute or objective morality.  There is no feasible example or instance in which nyone can argue that there is one without the consensus of a particular society.  If there was a standard moral code even from a God then those absolutes would be inherently known and consistent, there are none.  (There is not even a absolute/objective consensus of what is moral among people of the same faith, same church, praying to the same God, listening to the same Priest.)

Your saying that if absolute morality existed than somehow everyone would know it!? If something is true, it is true whether or not one person believes it or 100,000,000
I am arguing that for instance murder is ALWAYS wrong, it is wrong whether every person in the world thinks its fine or whether nobody in the world thinks its fine. Objective morality does not hinge upon whether or not everyone believes in it or not. I seem to be reiterating Craig

To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so

just because different societies/people groups disagree on morals does not mean that the objective morality does not exist. That seems a bit like saying, because we have different views on truth, objective truth does not exist, if it did exist we would all know about it. This sort of thinking style is blatantly fallacious. I agree that if everyone lived moral lives, there would be no conflict/inconsistency between groups and societies, but NOBODY lives perfectly moral lives, thus the conflict!  :hmm:[/quote]

if Absolute right, and Absolute wrong do not exist, than right and wrong become whatever you, I and society decide it to be. When this happens, we become malevolent bullies for trying to impose our idea of morality on anyone who holds any other idea of morality, we have no basis on which we can justify or condemn any act in regards to its relationship to morality.

I see that we are not discussing Christian morality, only theistic morality. In that case, which of the thousands of gods believed in by various groups of theists is the originator of objective morality?

again, we are discussing theistic vs non-theistic argument, this argument's point is to inductively prove a deity, I was wondering where you guys thought it went wrong, my goal was not to discuss what deity of these deities corresponds to a reality (or which of all the gods from all of history is actually God). I can see you are eager to discuss that and If you wish to I hope you will pm/email me. That wasn't my goal in coming to an atheistic forum. If I had come to a forum where there were hundreds upon hundreds of theists who all believed in different deities than I would be discussing what you mentioned (which is an important topic I might add)

I was going to ask if a god is above the morality that it promulgates, using your example of genocide as an objective wrong, and the supposed genocide of the whole human race except for one chosen family by YHVH as a clear example of that objective wrong, but I guess until I find out which is the true god in your understanding, that would be irrelevant.

Ahh, I assume you are reffering to the infamous "Attrocious God of the OT" that seems to be popular which makes for a very interesting discussion albeit vaguely related to the one we are having. One thing that you mentioned that is VERY relevant is morality in regards to theism, in fact, one could pose what Socretes posed to Euthyphro as mentioned in Plato's Dialog and form the "Euthyphro Dillema" here. Are things moral because God approves of them, or does God approve of things because they are moral? an Interesting question which I think has a (relatively) simple answer.
regardless I want to let you guys know I appreciate the responses, if I didn't get to everything I apologize, I will make sure to respond to anything else when I get the time
thanks!

[SSY]

You seem to be starting from the position that there is an absolute moral standard. Why do you beleive this?

An appeal to consequences will not satisfy me in this regard.

When talking about 2 groups who disagree on morality, you say at least one of the groups must be wrong, but this is only true if there is an absolute moral standard, which you have yet to demonstrate exists. For example, how do you know murder is wrong? How can you prove this? Do you have objective proof to back this up? Or is it just written down in some book that you happen to beleive in? Who are you to say that your book is right and the Koran is wrong?

[Phillysoul11]

You seem to be starting from the position that there is an absolute moral standard. Why do you beleive this?

An appeal to consequences will not satisfy me in this regard.

When talking about 2 groups who disagree on morality, you say at least one of the groups must be wrong, but this is only true if there is an absolute moral standard, which you have yet to demonstrate exists. For example, how do you know murder is wrong? How can you prove this? Do you have objective proof to back this up? Or is it just written down in some book that you happen to beleive in? Who are you to say that your book is right and the Koran is wrong?

I was merely pointing out the implications of not believing in objective reality, murder is wrong by its very definition (an unjustified killing) if it isn't wrong than it isn't murder, its a killing ect.
the theist can state that something is right/wrong objectively, regardless if it actually is right /wrong and hold consistent to their world view. The atheist cannot, for in doing so would contradict the very position he/she holds to.
Say for example that both a theist and an atheist witness an act of murder, both the theist and the atheist state know that the act is immoral, both parties claim something to be wrong/immoral but only the theist is justified in stating that the act is immoral, the atheist would have to conclude that "Well I think its wrong, and my society thinks it is wrong, but I don't know for sure if it is wrong, since wrong is merely opinion"  since there is nobody the atheist claims to objectively determine right/wrong claiming things to be right/wrong would simply be contradictory to what he/she believes. Consistency is what I'm after. If you would like to believe that objective morality is illusory than by all means, go for it. I'm just here to try and point out what that belief entails. I believe that if one is intellectually honest with themselves it would be much more plausible to conclude that objective morality does exist. Can I prove it does? No I can't, but then again I can't prove the existence of reality, truth or anything else for that matter.