Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – the moral argument and how Christians choose to lie

MJ, a christian who has come here and who often posts on her blog about christianity, is at it again with her lies about typical christian arguments for god. It’s the moral one this time, and as always it fails. (nothing new here, just a repeat of why the argument fails miserably and how christians choose to repeatedly lie to cling to their religion)

 Christian morality is demosntrably subjective, with each inventing a list of morals they claim their god wants, and yet the poor dears can’t show that their god merely exists, much less agrees with them. 

They also have the problem that they must insist that their god doesn’t have to follow these supposedly “objective” morals since they have to invent excuses why it is okay for this god to commit genocide, to kill people for the actions of others, etc. This makes their morality subjective to who someone is. it also shows their morality is little more than might equals right.

it’s notable how blind she is to her own argument’s failures, and all her claims depend on a presupposition: her god exists and agrees with her. She says this “Each group is just following the rules its leader selected and enforces, after all.” and curious how each group of christians does exactly that, sure that only they know what their imaginary friend really wants.

MJ also has no idea what evolutionary theory says and repeats the long since voided “strongest survives” trope to argue that rape, murder, etc could be considered making the “strongest survive”. She is oblivious to the fact that a common morality helps a population survive and that’s what evolution works on. She also forgets that her god has no problem at all with polygamy.

Yes, morality often does come down to who can enforce their ideal. We see that with the various cults and with governments. This doesn’t make any morals objective. It can show that some morals are common, but only because we are humans, not because of some imaginary being giving morality to anyone.

Then she manages to fall flat on her metaphorical face with the claim that humans somehow have a innate sense of morality, when not even christians can agree. Claims of how morals the bible is also fails since murder (david’s son, children of egypt), rape (midianite girls, priest’s concubine, lot’s daughters), theft (stealing from egypt), lying (abraham), and genocide (midianites, etc) are all considered just fine, depending on who does it. This, again, shows that christian morality, and all morality is subjective. There is no evidence of objective morality, and no explanation on how one would determine that.