Exbeliever is at it again.  Atheists who try to claim moral standards are hilarious.  If they didn’t take themselves so seriously, it would be the greatest comedy on Earth.

Exbeliever writes his vitriolic attack on Scriptures and concludes that the God of the Bible is immoral.  He then seeks to avoid all discussion on the issue by declaring that the presuppositional arguement is wrong.  Why?  Because he said so (who needs to provide reason when you have exbeliever’s authority?).

After I pointed out that exbeliever had given us no reason whatsoever to say that anything in the Bible is wrong, exbeliever responded with:

When I give any moral judgment, I’m making an objective, but not universal, judgment.

This is just hilarious.  What is exbeliever’s “objective” statement?  It is:

If your moral framework tells you that it is okay to set people up as pawns so that they can be destroyed, then I can admit that according to your moral framework those actions are objectively good.

But exbeliever forgets that if something is true according to a relative moral framework said action is subjective not objective!  In other words, if we take exbeliever’s claim to its logical conclusion, there is no such thing as subjectivity, because everything is objective when compared to its own relative framework!

Such is absurd beyond measure.  It is impossible for something to be objective without it being universal.  Something that is universal transcends the subject.

Next, exbeliever claims:

The acts that I listed are objectively wrong according to any moral framework that values non-violent resolutions to conflict, the protection of children and infants, the respect for people’s decisions on who they love, etc.

But this doesn’t answer the question.  Why should we accept a moral framework “that values non-violent resolution to conflict, etc.”?  What reason is there that we MUST accept this?  Exbeliever knows that his position has no reason for us in this, for he concludes:

If your moral framework tells you that it is okay to set people up as pawns so that they can be destroyed, then I can admit that according to your moral framework those actions are objectively good. That doesn’t mean that I have to accept your moral framework or that you have to accept mine.

The first sentence demonstrates yet again that exbeliever hasn’t got a clue about the definition of objective, for something is not objective if it is only objective according to my subjective framework.  His second sentence is exactly the point I’ve been making about him: I don’t have to accept his morality, so he cannot claim that his morality is actually objective!

Exbeliever then finishes up by providing yet once again my very arguement in that his position results in “Might is right.”  Exbeliever states:

Is this moral nihilism? No. I don’t say that any action is good, only that any action can be justified by reference to a specific moral framework. Power structures, however, make one more dominant than another in every society. I do everything in my power (and everything allowable in my moral framework) to assert my moral framework as the dominant one. I do not have to passively accept the moral definitions of another, but I do have to realize that there will sometimes be consequences for not accepting dominant moral frameworks.

I am left wondering why, exactly, exbeliever disagrees with my characterization of his position.  His morality is subjective, dependent upon the power of the one to enforce it, and is not actually linked to reality, for an action is not good in and of itself, but can only “be justified by reference to a specific moral framework.”

Exbeliever then says: “But what you miss every time is that in every moral framework that condemns these acts, your god is not good.”

I did not know exbeliever became omniscient.  But he is still wrong, for I have already argued before that God is not held to the same law that His creation is held to.  This is self-evident, even among parents with their children.  Parents can do things they do not allow their children to do precisely because things that won’t harm them will harm their children, etc.  Furthermore, it ignores the fact that the people who engage in these behavior are just that–people!  God is not “murdering” anyone.  Even if He allows it to occur, He is not actively doing the action.  It is people who murder, rape, steal, etc. and if God says He will punish people for doing that then He can do just that, even if He allowed them to do it when He could have stopped them.  To paraphrase what exbeliever wrote: I do not have to passively accept the moral definitions of God, but I do have to realize that there will sometimes be consequences for not accepting His moral framework.