[Alenycus]

Ive read Hitchens, and I am not impressed.

Subjective morality is ultimately simple preferance and ultimately just a battle of wills. I, and most other religious people, do not consider such a "moral order" to be morality at all.

Objective morality, with a judge above all judges who is justice itself, is the only way "justice" and morality mean anything at all.

[dragonwriter]

“Objective” morality is a misnomer for religious morality, it's just subjective morality ascribed to some mythical authority figure (and, even if that figure actually exists, for most religions, given the diversity of different moral systems ascribed to the divine judge, those are clearly misascriptions, largely reflecting the personal subjective morality of the people doing the ascribing.)

I'm personally religious, but the myth of objectivity is a very, very dangerous thing; in masks the ways that man creates God in his own image.

[Alenycus]

I am not claiming to have perfect vision of this order, but I am asserting that it exists and we have no choice but to sit in it's judgment. We can argue and and discuss about the specifics, but when I and other religious people are discussing morality, that is what we are trying to do. To make our morals and actions more in line with the ultimate objective morality.

I do not mean this as a flame, but I honestly do not understand why a person who believes in subjective morality would even discuss morality at all. If all morality is simply in the eye of the beholder, moral progress is impossible and it is not possible for one view to be superior to another.

[jfengel]

As opposed to the actual battles engaged in by the various religious groups over morality.

To which I say: have at it. I'll get some popcorn. Too bad about all the bystanders. But I'm sure they'll be happy knowing that they died in the service of objective morality.