Do you ever answer questions? Lets try again as my patience is wearing thin, and I shall start cutting and pasting from now on.
- If as you claimed torturing children is always wrong with no argument, why does your bible depict your deity killing and torturing and encouraging others to kill and torture children all the time?
- Since you claimed “we all know” moral absolutes exist, please offer at least one example.
- if as you claimed “Every “ought” bears evidence of objective morality.” Does this mean it was objectively moral when the Nazis thought they ought to commit genocide? Or for your biblical deity come to that? NB This is a question, not a claim or belief on my part.
Maybe an answer to this one please?
So we are not governed by moral absolutes then, but have to use reason and subjective judgement?
Sigh, another unevidenced assertion, humans like all animals that have evolved to live in societal groups, have evolved the ability to learn what behaviours are and are not acceptable to those societies. These are not absolutes though, and though undoubtedly empathy for other members of the group have a distinct survival advantage, we have also evolved brains capable of evolving more complex moral judgements. They are nonetheless subjective, they cannot be otherwise. this is true even among theists of course, as I said, and you ignored, do your morals align with those of theists like the Taliban or ISIS? HAd you been born in the middle east there is a pretty good chance you’d be claiming moral absolutes exist, but with a very different set of morals from a very different religion.
So you’re saying that torturing babies, committing genocide on a global scale, endorsing slavery, and ethnic cleansing and sex trafficking prisoners, to name just a few of the behaviours your bible depicts your deity doing is “uncorrupted justice”? I strongly disagree, and all I see in the bible are morals derived largely from bronze age patriarchal Bedouin human societies being passed off as the perfect morality of a perfect deity without even the pretence of any objective evidence to support the claim.
Which again is contradicted by the bible, so your argument apart from being wholly unevidenced, is at odds with the teachings of your own bible.
How I feel about the claim is utterly irrelevant to the fact that those passages, which you believe are true, contradict your claim that torturing children is always immoral with no argument.
Unless you can demonstrate sufficient objective evidence that humans can survive their own death in any meaningful way, then these assertions are meaningless, no different to Vikings believing they will go to Valhalla after they die. I see no relevance at all to your claim for moral absolutes, which you have also failed to evidence, or produce a single example of an absolute moral you emphatically claimed were real?
You’re missing the point, you claimed it was always immoral torture children no argument, and now you are adding an exception, do you not see how this undermines your argument it is a moral absolute? Leaving aside this is unevidenced superstition of course.
The rest of your post is more of the same irrelevant tap dancing around the fact, if it is a moral absolute that it is always immoral (as you claimed) to torture children, and you believe the bible as you purport to do, then the deity in the bible must have been immoral, you can’t tap dance your way out of that contradiction with endless hypothetical speculation.
Can you, or can you not offer even one single example of a moral absolute? If you can’t then why would anyone believe your sweeping unevidenced claim they exist? Especially as you are now suggesting moral choices are nuanced and relative, which undermines your own claim.
Don’t be silly it directly refutes your claim that there is never any argument that torturing children is always wrong, since I gave an example of people (theists by the way, many of them Christians) who obviously tortured children among their many victims.
Oh ffs, the example is evidence that your and my subjective opinions that something is immoral, differ to the subjective moral opinions of Nazis.
They made that point ffs, both before and after the fact, how are you missing this? And anyway, even if every single human that ever lived agreed it was wrong, it would still be a subjective opinion, how could it ever be otherwise? You are wrongly equating a consensus of subjective opinions as objective fact, without evidence to support your claim, all you;re doing is making a bare appeal to numbers, it’s an argumentum ad populum fallacy.
So we all agree, except for those who disagree like the Nazis? 
Seriously read that back and try not to laugh at such an obvious oxymoron.
Except they didn’t know it did they, their social convention differed, and you picked one assumes what you thought would be a slam dunk of an example. if we all agreed that torturing children was always wrong no argument, then children would never be tortured, and the Nazis are not the only people to do this, even your own bible depicts your own deity doing it, and all you could do was try and excuse it with hypothetical nonsense about what “it might have suffered otherwise”, dear oh dear.
Indeed, but since I didn’t equate them in this generic sweeping way, that’s another straw man fallacy from you and again the dishonesty of you clipping those few words to create that fallacy speaks for itself. Do you accept the fact that the leader of the SS Heinrich Himmler is on record as saying that atheists were not suitable for the SS? Do you accept the fact that the Christians in Germany had some very different subjective moral views to your own? Those are facts that are salient to this discourse, as they demonstrate objective evidence that morality is both relative and subjective.
So fucking what, it’s full of stories of genocide, and ethnic cleansing, almost as if it is a collection of subjective opinions from an epoch of ignorance, supersiton and cruel and barbarism. I need no better argument than that, and you claiming something is absolutely immoral, then citing examples that contradict that claim, and one from your own bible depicting your own deity doing it, to demonstrate your unevidenced claims for moral absolutes is wrong. You can’t even produce a single example of a moral absolute?
That’s a no true Scotsman fallacy, and as well as being irrational, it is yet another example of subjective moral opinions differing. And between theists and Christians at that, with you claiming they are not Christians, and them making the same claim about you. I can only suggest you properly research the links between European Christianity and Nazis antisemitism, and how the various Christian churches behaved, starting with the fact that Nazi Germany was overwhelmingly Christian, I am talking about around 94% of the people identifying as Christian in a census in the late 30’s. Those facts will require a something more substantive and compelling in response than hand waving and a no true Scotsman fallacy.
Again this is a no true Scotsman fallacy. And an easy alternative can be posited that these facts demonstrate Christians are no more moral than non-Christians of course, and that morality is relative and subjective. So your false dichotomy and straw man fallacies are not very compelling arguments. Though you are again missing the larger point of the morality being relative and subjective, even among the innumerable sects and denominations of Christianity of course, both historically and among contemporaries.
Another rather tedious straw man, since I never made any such claim about Christians, you really need to read more carefully. Though of course since atheism has no doctrine or dogma, it no more significant that an atheist is good or bad, than it is that someone who doesn’t believe in mermaids is good or bad, especially since these examples demonstrate that those terms are both relative and subjective, a point you seem determined to miss.
The straw man fallacies you keep creating do seem to be endless yes, since again you are entirely misrepresenting my argument.
How does this indicate moral absolutes then? Or the bible depicting a perfectly moral deity torturing a newborn baby to death, when you said that torturing children is always immoral no argument?
It maybe have seemed a cheap shot, but you waste endless responses that ignore the points made in favour of straw men claims I have not made, and roll past question after question leaving them unanswered.
Based on a false equivalence fallacy, that equated materialism with atheism, and that equated abstract ideas and methods like logic with unevidenced superstitious beliefs in the supernatural. So that argument failed demonstrably in a number of ways. The efficacy of logic can be objectively demonstrated in its results, unevidenced belief in any deity or the supernatural cannot be objectively evidenced, else religious apologists would do so, and we would all believe in that deity.
Well a more accurate assertion is that materialism per se has nothing whatsoever to do with atheism.
Did you, I asked you to quote a single atheist here claiming they were materialists and never got an answer?
No.
No.
They are synonymous, but then so are other methods like logic for example, also philosophy though this has now largely been superseded by science at least in studying the natural physical world.