Premise: Objective morals do not exist

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If everyone is free to believe as they please, (and everyone gets to draw their own lines) what gives you the right to make moral judgements upon Hitler or the God of the Bible?

"If" we we are free to believe??

Last time I checked there was no more restriction of thought on me than any people. Mans laws dont restrict . Other' opinions and books don't hamper any freedom either.

Difference between me and theists is I choose to exercise my freedom of thought daily whereas most Christians seem to equate free thinking with demonic\satanic contamination

Originally posted by @karoly-aczel
"If" we we are free to believe??...

Christians believe as they wish, same as everyone else. This has been a theme for me lately.

It doesn't work on christians though.

Originally posted by @karoly-aczel
"If" we we are free to believe??

Last time I checked there was no more restriction of thought on me than any people. Mans laws dont restrict . Other' opinions and books don't hamper any freedom either.

Difference between me and theists is I choose to exercise my freedom of thought daily whereas most Christians seem to equate free thinking with demonic\satanic contamination

Yes man's laws don't restrict. That's why the likes of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot killed by the millions.

Originally posted by @apathist
The nazis were wrong. Where do you get your 'facts' from?

Were they objectively wrong or is there a chance that they were right?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Yes man's laws don't restrict. That's why the likes of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot killed by the millions.

Yes. Yes they did.

Pont?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Yes man's laws don't restrict. That's why the likes of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot killed by the millions.

Your god figure's "laws" didn't restrict the likes of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot killing millions either, did they?

What's more, you have suggested that you wouldn't have wanted to see your morality imposed upon societies like the ones brutalized by Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot.

Added to which, you believe that what Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot did was equally evil as if they had got angry with a relative!

Your moral compass, such as it is, seems to amount to nothing except a peculiarly substance-free self-righteousness, and the impotent resort to believing in magical beings and magical punishments.

Originally posted by @fmf
Your god figure's "laws" didn't restrict the likes of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot killing millions either, did they?

What's more, you have suggested that you wouldn't have wanted to see your morality imposed upon societies like the ones brutalized by Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot.

Added to which, you believe that what Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot did was equal ...[text shortened]... f-righteousness, and the impotent resort to believing in magical beings and magical punishments.

But the original OP was 'where does god get its morals from'. I didn't see anyone tackling that one.

Originally posted by @fmf
Your god figure's "laws" didn't restrict the likes of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot killing millions either, did they?

What's more, you have suggested that you wouldn't have wanted to see your morality imposed upon societies like the ones brutalized by Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot.

Added to which, you believe that what Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot did was equal ...[text shortened]... f-righteousness, and the impotent resort to believing in magical beings and magical punishments.

Yet you cannot even say that what the likes of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot did was objectively wrong. You are therefore still open to the possibility that their actions could be right. Obviously God's laws do not restrict those that reject them.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Yet you cannot even say that what the likes of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot did was objectively wrong.

I've said I think they were morally wrong. And I've given you my moral reasoning. If you want to agree with me but, in doing so, slap the label "objectively" on to it, you go for it if it makes you feel more secure about taking a personal stand or exercising your capacity as a moral agent. I don't need this affectation and I don't need the bolstering affirmation provided by some ancient text that you seem to depend upon.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
You are therefore still open to the possibility that their actions could be right.

Give me a real-world/realistic scenario where you believe I would argue that the actions of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot were morally right. I will give you my moral analysis.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Obviously God's laws do not restrict those that reject them.

"God's laws" and belief in Jesus do not restrict those who believe in and accept these things either.

Originally posted by @fmf
I've said I think they were morally wrong. And I've given you my moral reasoning. If you want to agree with me but, in doing so, slap the label "objectively" on to it, you go for it if it makes you feel more secure about taking a personal stand or exercising your capacity as a moral agent. I don't need this affectation and I don't need the bolstering affirmation provided by some ancient text that you seem to depend upon.

What reason do you have to believe that your moral reasoning is correct when someone else's moral reasoning contradicts yours?

Originally posted by @fmf
Give me a real-world/realistic scenario where you believe I would argue that the actions of Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot were morally right. I will give you my moral analysis.

The fact that you don't believe in an objective standard for right and wrong means that everyone is entitled to their opinion which would mean you would be ok with it if someone disagreed with you about your moral analysis.

Originally posted by @fmf
"God's laws" and belief in Jesus do not restrict those who believe in and accept these things either.

The fact that you possibly rejected all of 'God's laws' when you were a Christian doesn't mean that all Christians do.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
What reason do you have to believe that your moral reasoning is correct when someone else's moral reasoning contradicts yours?

We've discussed this before. Specifically. Explicitly. And in detail. And you blanked it out. I do not need to repeat myself, even you do.