Premise: Objective morals do not exist

Originally posted by @js357
One reason (among others) is that we (I, at least) do not want to give you misleading answers. But you ignore my attempts to delve deeper into the real issues you raise. Is that my fault? Or is genuine exploration of issues not your agenda? What IS your agenda? There’s nothing wrong with having one.

The concepts of 'good' and 'evil' only make sense to me with God in the picture. I am trying to figure out how someone who does not believe in God makes logical sense of these concepts. So far I'm just getting evasions to my questions.

Originally posted by @apathist
The answer is up to you.

Expect that you should justify yourself.

If a rapist can justify in their mind that the action of rape is right does that automatically make the action right for them or is the action of rape wrong regardless or whether or not someone is able to justify it?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
As I see it an action can logically be moral, immoral or neither but it can't be both moral and immoral.

Would you agree that a moral rule can be approved of by some, and disapproved or by others?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
The concepts of 'good' and 'evil' only make sense to me with God in the picture. I am trying to figure out how someone who does not believe in God makes logical sense of these concepts. So far I'm just getting evasions to my questions.

A secular-based subjective approach that sees morality as an evolving system for influencing the social behavior of somewhat intelligent, somewhat rational beings is quite workable, as is demonstrated every day

A whole lot of people believe that their moral rule book is the objectively true word of God. That’s part of the current structure of morality.

There may be something irrational about the current structure of morality, but we seem to need it pretty much the way it is.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
The concepts of 'good' and 'evil' only make sense to me with God in the picture. I am trying to figure out how someone who does not believe in God makes logical sense of these concepts. So far I'm just getting evasions to my questions.

Your problem is this:

The concepts of 'good' and 'evil' only make sense to me with God in the picture

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
Your problem is this:

The concepts of 'good' and 'evil' only make sense to me with God in the picture

How anyone can treat “Goddidit” as a satisfactory solution to a logic problem is beyond my powers of rationalization.

Originally posted by @js357
Would you agree that a moral rule can be approved of by some, and disapproved or by others?

Sure, but if someone approves rape for example, they are still wrong aren't they?

Originally posted by @js357
A secular-based subjective approach that sees morality as an evolving system for influencing the social behavior of somewhat intelligent, somewhat rational beings is quite workable, as is demonstrated every day

A whole lot of people believe that their moral rule book is the objectively true word of God. That’s part of the current structure of morality.

...[text shortened]... ional about the current structure of morality, but we seem to need it pretty much the way it is.

The problem is if your moral standard is evolving and can contradict itself, can that system of moral determination be true since it can produce self-contradiction?

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
Your problem is this:

The concepts of 'good' and 'evil' only make sense to me with God in the picture

Why is it a problem?

Originally posted by @js357
How anyone can treat “Goddidit” as a satisfactory solution to a logic problem is beyond my powers of rationalization.

Logic itself only really makes sense with God in the picture. Where did logic come from if there is no God?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Logic itself only really makes sense with God in the picture. Where did logic come from if there is no God?

You’re getting close to an intelligent design argument.

Originally posted by @js357
You’re getting close to an intelligent design argument.

What problem would you have with an intelligent design argument?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Why is it a problem?

You said it was.

"I am trying to figure out how someone who does not believe in God makes logical sense of these concepts"

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Where did logic come from if there is no God?

You may as well ask where cornflakes came from if there is no god.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Sure, but if someone approves rape for example, they are still wrong aren't they?

I think so. You apparently think so. Does the Word of God think so? If so, good. But does it, always and throughout history, objectively so?