Show me how.
Same as you. Moral instinct. Sense of fairness.
Start with how morals come about for an atheist and what makes them anything but a relativistic and subjective preference.
Without explicit MORAL AXIOMS, your claim to "universal" "objective" morality is indistinguishable from your personal preference.
Please present your moral mathematics.
Again, the presentation relies on your merit, your good deeds outweighing your bad deeds. It does not take into account God's moral purity and holiness, and the wrongs we have done that deserve addressing. Remember, God is a good Judge. He does not wink at evil or wrongdoing but addresses it. Thus, I realize my good deeds do not measure up to His perfection and that I have fallen short of the mark He has set for intimate fellowship and peace and joy with Him. That is why I look to the works of another, the Lord Jesus Christ in setting my record straight.
So, my moral maths is a realization that I do not measure up to God's perfection and goodness. Thus, once again, I take the means God has given me to do that. I no longer continue to strive to do the impossible. I see through the example of OT Israel that they were abject failures in maintaining their relationship with God. They continually ignored Him and His moral compass. His word is my plumb line. Through it I realize I am
not good enough in my own merit to have a close relationship with such a pure and holy Person. I can't come into His presence and live there on my own merit, only on that of Jesus Christ.
Romans 3:5-18 (NASB)
5 But if our unrighteousness [a]demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is He? (I am speaking in human terms.) 6 May it never be! For otherwise, how will God judge the world? 7 But if through my lie the truth of God abounded to His glory, why am I also still being judged as a sinner? 8 And why not say (as we are slanderously reported and as some claim that we say), “Let us do evil that good may come”? [b]Their condemnation is just.
9 What then? [c]Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; 10 as it is written,
“There is none righteous, not even one;
11 There is none who understands,
There is none who seeks for God;
12 All have turned aside, together they have become useless;
There is none who does good,
There is not even one.”
13 “Their throat is an open grave,
With their tongues they keep deceiving,”
“The poison of asps is under their lips”;
14 “Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness”;
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood,
16 Destruction and misery are in their paths,
17 And the path of peace they have not known.”
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
If that is all you've got why should I believe you when I hold different beliefs about morality?
Unless you can show me that your beliefs are well founded and ring true to what is the case, the actual good, your moral system is a facade, something you hide behind. Show me it has what is necessary by showing me it is objective for starters, or at least reasonable to believe it is objective. That is step one. If that involves your god, then show me how your god is reasonable to believe. Show me what evidence that god as given you so that you might believe in such a god.
You see, I am well prepared to show you that my God meets the burden of proof but what has been written. I can also show you how your god contradicts my God, so at least one of the two is false.
Therefore, I suggest you lay out truths about your god and why that god is true and I will contrast your beliefs with the Christian God and show you why what you believe is not as reasonable to believe. Whether you still choose to believe is your choice of course.
But that's the funny thing. We discovered our moral instincts in exactly the same way. And we believe basically the same thing (ethics).
Do we? And who is borrowing from whose system of morality?
Why do you think mine is just moral instinct? I look to a source outside myself that has revealed.
What is your stance on abortion, same-sex marriage, capital punishment, adultery? We could test our beliefs in each of these areas, or to cut it short let's even see if we think the same about abortion.
The fact that you claim your moral codec is endorsed by some celestial celebrity means nothing to me.
What is objective about your moral choices? Do you have what is necessary for objectivity? If so, lay out your case.
The fact that I might claim my own moral codec is endorsed by some rival celestial celebrity means nothing to you.
Go ahead. Let us test it out. I am game!
What makes one subjective preference 'better' than another?
The ability to cobble together PERSUASIVE RHETORIC (AND OR BLUNT FORCE).
(As he reaches for his gun and cocks the trigger. "Persuade me," He says.)
Atheists use qualitative language all the time but how do they distinguish better?
Using absolute language to describe your moral preferences is simply a category error.
How is that absolute? It is asking a question. I am inquiring how atheists, using qualitative language, such as 'good, better, evil,' arrive at such a term if there is no ideal or fixed standard on which to compare these values against? Show me how their view reflects anything other than subjectivism or relativism.
Where's your moral mathematics?
See above.
What is their ultimate/final/fixed reference point?
The same as yours. Yourself. You are the only thing at the center of your own perception.
No, mine is not myself. I appeal to a reference that is beyond myself. I look to that point of view as a necessary authority on morality and adopt His thoughts on the subject of morality. Morality does not derive from me but Another! I look at His goodness, His nature, the attributes He displays by His word and see they meet the standard - fixed, unchanging, eternal, objective.
