Mc Real - the single point I am making is that, if there is no God who has made humanity, then there is no non-arbitrary means by which humans can establish what, if anything, is right or wrong. Clearly you don’t like this conclusion but there is nothing in your post that refutes it.

You assert that ‘Morality is simply about maximizing wellbeing’. The bank robber presumably thinks he is maximising his wellbeing by robbing banks and if he gets away with it, maybe he is. Who are you to say that he isn’t?

But of course you also claim that ‘we are answerable each other and our communities’. So your ‘morality’ seems to boil down to one of might makes right – whatever most people want becomes what is ‘right’. The claim that majority rule establishes what is right is itself a subjective, unvalidated claim and besides you don’t even believe it yourself anyway.

Or do you say that if most people are against same sex marriage that it is therefore 'wrong'?

You say that ‘secular morality requires thought and effort’, but it doesn’t matter how much thought and effort you put in, you cannot validate whatever conclusions you happen to draw.

If you can validate them, if you can say why one human beings moral values are superior to another human being’s moral values, please show us on what basis that is established.

JP, I think you were addressing AJ Phillips.

However, you caught my attention

" if there is no God who has made humanity, then there is no non-arbitrary means by which humans can establish what, if anything, is right or wrong."

That is wrong - if there is no god, there is still means by which humans establish right or wrong. If there is God, the means are still arbitrary as the various religious organisations differ.

The morality between or amongst the various churches and religious organisations are arbitrary, particularly as the premises upon which they base their morality are arbitrary or unfounded.

In any case, if Man created God,
which is a far more rationally defensible
position than the reverse, then it follows
that anything that God purportedly decreed
was actually devised by people.

The entire line of argument is redundant,
if one doesn't subscribe to religious faith
in God. In other words, it's just more sophistry.

The churches are good at it, probably because
they have to be.

I assume most of that was addressed to me, JP.

<<...the single point I am making is that, if there is no God who has made humanity, then there is no non-arbitrary means by which humans can establish what, if anything, is right or wrong.>>

So if two people are stuck on a deserted island, what would be the more moral action to take:

-Cooperate in order to survive, or;
-bash each other’s heads in with rocks?

According to you, there is no way to determine which of the above is more moral without flicking through an old book to consult the opinion of a higher being - specifically one that created the universe.

Like McReal pointed out, it’s not about the individuals so much as what is good for the collective as a whole.

Besides which, your assumption here is that if a god created the universe, then what that god says is automatically right. If this god asked you to kill your children, does that make it right? Saying that god wouldn’t do that is beside the point, by the way.

<<Clearly you don’t like this conclusion but there is nothing in your post that refutes it.>>

In fact, there was. And if the above doesn’t make that as clear as day, I don’t know what will.

<<You assert that ‘Morality is simply about maximizing wellbeing’.

I don’t assert that. That’s demonstrable.

The only assertions here are coming from yourself as you are unable to demonstrate why a higher being’s instructions are moral for any reason other than, ‘they said so and they’re the creator’, and that’s not a reason because is says nothing about the wellbeing of ourselves and others.

Like I said: ‘Blind obedience to authority’ masquerading as morality.

<<The bank robber presumably thinks he is maximising his wellbeing by robbing banks and if he gets away with it, maybe he is. Who are you to say that he isn’t?>>

Because if every one - or even just the occasional person - robbed a bank, then that’s not good for us as a collective.

Continued...

...Continued

It’s about balancing an individual’s wellbeing with that of their community’s as a whole.

Yes, yes, it requires one to think; something unimaginable for some theists, I know.

<<But of course you also claim that ‘we are answerable each other and our communities’. So your ‘morality’ seems to boil down to one of might makes right – whatever most people want becomes what is ‘right’.>>

And a society that doesn’t choose that which maximizes the wellbeing of every one in general, is going to die-out or dissipate fairly quickly.

So there’s very little about it that’s subjective...

<<The claim that majority rule establishes what is right is itself a subjective, unvalidated claim and besides you don’t even believe it yourself anyway.>>

Did I mention you one can validate it as well?

<<Or do you say that if most people are against same sex marriage that it is therefore 'wrong'?>>

No, again, it goes by whether or not it maximizes the wellbeing of the community as a whole, not just by what someone says and that includes a god. The method we'd apply to determine if our actions are moral or not would still apply to the rules of a god.

'He said so', doesn't cut it and like I said, it's for the thoughtless and lazy.

There was a time when most thought slavery was okay, but it didn’t maximize wellbeing because black people suffered.

<<You say that ‘secular morality requires thought and effort’, but it doesn’t matter how much thought and effort you put in, you cannot validate whatever conclusions you happen to draw.>>

Oh dear...