one of the biggest problems with religion.

[Skavau]

Your definitions of 'anti-' is faulty, and your views on what others intend with their 'anti' are equally so, no one has any delusions that opposing anything will bring about an eradication. You don't get to modify the terms to suit your fancy!

Huh?

My anti-theism, as I call it means this. The position that it would be rather bad if one of the renditions of the traditional theistic Gods existed. You would do well to note that this position holds no opposition to what people think and also note that I am not an anti-deist, or anti-pantheist.

My position is very fallible (I am only human, and not the most knowledgeable) God's doctrine however isn't and isn't subject to your criticisms as you are equally fallible for you are equally human! The law isn't there to satisfy everyone, but we can take comfort in knowing it is dispensed by the most just!

There we are, you contend and profess trust in something that you consider infallible. Now, what is the difference between contending your view on say Islam is infallible and believing in something that you profess to be infallible?

The end result appears to be the exact same: the inability to change, and refusal to change (and often pride in stagnation) with new information, or new ideals.

Irrespectively, I'd be interested to know how you know or how you understand God to be "most just". What characteristics do you think being 'just' has to include?

indeed and they were also all atheists, so draw your own conclusions, if you are desiring of that route!

You selectively referenced a lot of murderers that are atheist. I could just as well do the same with theists.

I believe that to be a subjective find.. how do you measure emotions? and if you possess them, then surely others do too.. or is that only mod amongst atheists?

People who do not possess empathy are considered to have behavioural problems and are generally referred t as psychopath. It has played a pretty important part in our development of being morally aware.

And there is no behavioural consistency with atheists. Atheists are not a group.

Man-made constitutions aren't.. God mandated constitution is. As new situations arise we have ijtihad from scholars which is rooted in the fundamental principles ..

Okay, now you specify you were refering to 'God's constitution'.

I don't know why you're so obtuse.

 

[Skavau]

Most of what you've been saying in this thread is largely for trying to prove that Hell is immoral, right?

Hello.

I don't try to 'prove' anything, only give out my perspective. I am more interested in getting people to try and reach out on common ground.

And by talking about objectively analysing whether the punisment fits the crime you also bring up the objective morality issue.

Yes. I don't believe objective morality is coherent, much less possible or plausible.

But what is your "objective" moral code really based upon?
Atheism in fact has no standard whereas the Qur'an with the Sunna has given people clear guidelines which we are all to follow and the morality found in these two doesn't change. That is not the case though with your morality.

Atheism has no 'standard' for morality, for it is not meant as a moral world view or moral philosophy. Atheism only refers to people who do not believe in the existence of a God(s). Islam however is a specific world view that makes claims on what is as well as what ought.

And on your note concerning the 'clear guidelines' in the Qu'ran - it goes on to further a statement earlier: that people on here are often prideful in stagnation. Often prefer the position of believing in ideas that remain 'absolute' and 'unchangeing'. To actually respond to it though - I don't believe you could call something moral if you remove the possibility for change and compromise. Morality is a societal affair and has everything to do with compromise between groups of people.

What you are talking about appears to be obedience to a fixed set of orders.

Your morality is either based on social pressure or as some atheists like to argue "objective morality comes from evolution".

I don't argue either. But social pressure plays a role in villifying oddities, eccentrics and that has a byproduct of creating taboos (which have very real ethical problems).

When we get our morality solely from society we first face a problem of its changing nature. Just as society changes the morality derived from it changes with it. And that is exactly the case with you. I've noticed you're quite supportive of homosexualism in several of your statements but may I argue that had you lived some 50 years ago you would most likely be against it.

I am not 'supportive' of homosexuality anymore than I am supportive of people listening to rap music. I don't like nor wish to engage in either but I would not wish their rights to do so be taken away at my disgust, or offense.

And yes, the societal taboos against homosexuality 50 years ago were more reinforced then (due to the fact religious opinion had more of a sway then).

You also said you respond to what you find dangerous. But in fact basing your morality on society is rather dangerous as social pressure itself is very dangerous. Perhaps the greatest example of this is the 1940-s social agreement in Nazi germany upon killing the Jews. People there also found it to be morally okay but was it really?

I don't base my morality on society. As you may know, several countries in europe (and supported by a large percentage of people) are proposing that the niqaab be outlawed in public for varying reasons (most focusing on bogus nationalistic or security reasons). I disagree with that profusely as an assault on personal liberty.

I also disagree with much of the justice system here, and how it behaves as well as the uniformity of anti-intellectualism that the politics here produces.

And no, it wasn't in the slightest bit okay (Nazi Germany).

Of course not... but we can only say it to be objectively morally wrong when we base our claim on God. All other than that makes it subjective as whatever human minds produce themselves in the field of morality is utterly subjective.

Actually you can't.

How does 'objective morality' work? How does a God existing mean that a behavioural standard somehow becomes 'objective'? And if indeed, God does exist and decrees all of morality - then what does the purpose of morality become?

If you believe there to be any other sources of morality apart from these three (2 false and 1 true), please do bring them up in your next reply...

Empathy is the closest thing that we have to 'objective' morality. Concerning ethics, the closest thing to 'objective' we have is the concept of human rights. The first set of principles that are established (sadly hardly enforced) for the individual. For the person. Historically grandiose states have arisen, declared objectives of expansionism and decreed the population as subservient and tools to that end as a part of that. This has all too many times involved the complete eradication of the individual in the process. What purpose does it have for the doomed slave or prisoner to know his state will live on and conquer others? He won't see it. He won't be a part of it.

This is what human rights finally addressed: the security and prosperity of the individual as important that so many fascist, totalitarian and theocratic states historically have ignored and continue to ignore because they believe their 'divine' plans are more important.

 

[Skavau]

If these atheists are basing moral subjectivity on evelution thats their opinion. But if they had morals they would show some respect(morality) and say thank you to Skye for all the time she has taken to educate them on her and or others beliefs:hmm:

Excuse me sir, I don't know you and you don't know me.

I don't believe it is fair for you to tell me I have no morality when you have never met me or chatted to me extensively on here. And this indeed is not the first time that I have seen you say this about atheists either.

I have already said I do my utmost to remain civil and friendly.

 

[Skavau]

it wouldn't be called 'belief' if we didn't apply it to the matters of the unseen, would it now eace: that the whole point of belief you are using it to rely on believing unseen things.

Okay.

This can only be describe as contending there is virtue in faith, which I do thoroughly dispute - but this is not the thread.

Allah has specified what qualifies for heaven and hell. he tells us that some Muslims may also enter hell and the only thing that will save them from abiding eternally in hell will be their belief of tawheed. he's given the criteria of hell and heaven, so you cant blame anyone but yourselves for rejecting it.

Whilst you are a newcomer to this thread, I hate repeating myself.

Lynx himself gave a fantastic example to this. What if I posted a message under your door saying that you must convert to Christianity under pain of eternal torture. What would you do? Would it be convincing to you? Keep in mind here that I am not a Muslim because I am not convinced by the claims that the Qu'ran is true. I genuinely don't believe a heaven or hell as described by the Qu'ran actually exist. I cannot change this position without first being convinced (this is why also that punishing apostates makes no sense). I can only be dishonest and pretend that I accept Islam.

Now how is that fair? Are you saying it is acceptable for me to go to hell and languish in eternal torture purely for not being correct, for having the wrong information?

Here's another analogy: Let us say a blind man walks out into a busy street and gets knocked over by a car. Did he 'deserve' to suffer that because he was not aware?

why dont you question why people get paradise as paradise is the opposite of Hell: reward. people get rewarded for abiding by the law, and likewise, people get punished for going against.

Because 'paradise' is entirely consistent with God being declared as omnibenevolent. Hell is not.

it makes sense to punish people for being "godless" as the whole purpose of our creation is to worship god so what do you think the fate of someone will be if they go against this.

Interesting.

That doesn't sound like a moral purpose, just one born of obedience.

likewise, the whole purpose of going to school is to learn so what will happen if we get bad grades? we are going to have trouble getting to the uni's we want and getting a good job. cause and effect.

What teachers propose torture to their failed students? What educational establishment do you know that will torment children for their entire life if they fail or mess around in school?

Ridiculous comparison.

and what about the people/muslims who do sincerely work and who have sincerely earned paradise. isnt is unfair to them that they enter heaven after working so hard for it, and yet someone who doesnt work for paradise gets in, free ticket. does that make sense to you?

If you've ever read any of my arguments you'll know that none of it rests on desiring heaven, or expecting heaven. It is about the idea that people are 'deserving' of hell (torture) based on something that they could not, or were unable to believe.

 

[Skavau]

skavau - you're a smart and sincere guy. i look forward to reading more from you and getting some insight into your beliefs.

it's time for me to go to work while everyone else i work with gets off for the holiday.. to make it worse, it is 3:55am! but ill try to respond to you later. i look forward to talking to you and seeing what you have to say.

Okay. Thank you.

 

[Skavau]

The crux of his video was just because you think something is just or unjust does not make it so (he covers this with Slobodan milosevic example). For critics to sit back and say ''oh it's so unjust that xyz burns in hell just because they chose not to believe in Allah'' is therefore a flawed statement. You are expecting God's judgement to exactly parallel human judgement. You are basing God's decision on the mind-set of a human being which means you are ignoring the qualities of God completely. Then you wonder why does this not make any sense.

I have not watched the videos, but this crux appears to be identical to just saying: "We can't understand God's wisdom - so just deal with it."

It's a non-answer.

 

[جوري]

Huh?

My anti-theism, as I call it means this. The position that it would be rather bad if one of the renditions of the traditional theistic Gods existed. You would do well to note that this position holds no opposition to what people think and also note that I am not an anti-deist, or anti-pantheist.

You don't have to explain your bigotry to me nor water it down, just duly noted the next time you want to advocate for some degenerate groups rights with bravado!

There we are, you contend and profess trust in something that you consider infallible. Now, what is the difference between contending your view on say Islam is infallible and believing in something that you profess to be infallible?

The difference I have already illustrated, can you have a perfectly good egg and ruin it with your cooking? try some abstract thought.. I am not the most learned person in Islamic tawheed, fiqh, jurisprudence, etc.
and people like you, love to bank on ignorance to flaw the principles!

The end result appears to be the exact same: the inability to change, and refusal to change (and often pride in stagnation) with new information, or new ideals.

Is that not applicable to you as well?

Irrespectively, I'd be interested to know how you know or how you understand God to be "most just". What characteristics do you think being 'just' has to include?

really not difficult to ponder your creation and that of the world around you to note the one who created perfection and beauty shall also keep to justice and balance!

You selectively referenced a lot of murderers that are atheist. I could just as well do the same with theists.

Indeed but as I have already illustrated, that atheists have murdered more than all the religions combined, again, in case you want to go down the route 'damage to society' I don't think anyone can one-up the atheists.. they go home with the prize!

People who do not possess empathy are considered to have behavioural problems and are generally referred t as psychopath. It has played a pretty important part in our development of being morally aware.

What is your point? it is still subjective, how do I quantify that?

And there is no behavioural consistency with atheists. Atheists are not a group.

you share a thing that groups you!

Okay, now you specify you were refering to 'God's constitution'.

I think that should have been overtly obvious?

I don't know why you're so obtuse.

I don't know why you are so-------------

meh, let's leave it at that..


all the best!

 

[Skavau]

You don't have to explain your bigotry to me nor water it down, just duly noted the next time you want to advocate for some degenerate groups rights with bravado!

What bigotry? How is anti-theism bigotry?

The difference I have already illustrated, can you have a perfectly good egg and ruin it with your cooking? try some abstract thought.. I am not the most learned person in Islamic tawheed, fiqh, jurisprudence, etc.
and people like you, love to bank on ignorance to flaw the principles!

That's not a decent analogy. First of all, the 'egg' isn't absolute, nor considered perfect.

In the context of this discussion, we're dealing with knowledge claims here. If you claim to fallibly believe that something is infallible - then the end result is no different to believing your understanding is infallible. In both instances, the person could not or would not question the integrity of the infallible part.

Is that not applicable to you as well?

You know simply deflecting criticisms I make against you, or something else is hardly a convincing or even mature argument.

really not difficult to ponder your creation and that of the world around you to note the one who created perfection and beauty shall also keep to justice and balance!

This is just a more elaborate rephrasal of your original claim. You've already told me that the creator is the most 'just'. I wonder how you determine what 'just' or 'justice' is.

Indeed but as I have already illustrated, that atheists have murdered more than all the religions combined, again, in case you want to go down the route 'damage to society' I don't think anyone can one-up the atheists.. they go home with the prize!

Do you understand the difference between motive and specific unrelated characteristics. For example, Joseph Stalin had a moustache and was the head of totalitarian state that murdered millions, or led to the death of millions.

Now, could we argue that moustaches were responsible for his actions? After all Lenin had one too.

What is your point? it is still subjective, how do I quantify that?

If you're going to insist I explain the full biology of empathy, I simply can't do that.

you share a thing that groups you!

Lol, right

So does that mean 'people who don't play golf' are a group? Or people who don't collect stamps all share the same hobby?

I think that should have been overtly obvious?

To you, because you don't engage on common ground.

 

[aamirsaab]

I have not watched the videos, but this crux appears to be identical to just saying: "We can't understand God's wisdom - so just deal with it."

It's a non-answer.

Watch the video and take note of his examples. It's pretty clear: you cannot on the one hand accept God's reward of bounty (that does not parallel mankind's) and then reject His methodology on the basis it does not parallel mankind's.

It's essentially and apples vs oranges argument: If you accept for the sake of argument that paradise exists, then it is logical to accept for the sake of argument the basis of judgement of entering paradise. If you argue otherwise, then you are dealing with apples vs oranges. You can't have one without the other.

 

[جوري]

What bigotry? How is anti-theism bigotry?

How is antisemitism bigotry?

That's not a decent analogy. First of all, the 'egg' isn't absolute, nor considered perfect.

But I have put the specificity of a perfect egg before proceeding!

In the context of this discussion, we're dealing with knowledge claims here. If you claim to fallibly believe that something is infallible - then the end result is no different to believing your understanding is infallible. In both instances, the person could not or would not question the integrity of the infallible part.

There is no claim when there is study!
given that you are unstudied in the matter (even far less than most members here from a Muslim background) you don't get to decide what is perfect and what isn't.

You know simply deflecting criticisms I make against you, or something else is hardly a convincing or even mature argument

I am not sure you are able to make a coherent argument let alone carry it out to an adult level!

This is just a more elaborate rephrasal of your original claim. You've already told me that the creator is the most 'just'. I wonder how you determine what 'just' or 'justice' is.

By the same mechanisms you determine human empathy!

Do you understand the difference between motive and specific unrelated characteristics. For example, Joseph Stalin had a moustache and was the head of totalitarian state that murdered millions, or led to the death of millions.

You mean like when Enver hoxha decided to implement the first atheistic state:

According to Hoxha, the surge in anti-religious activity began with the youth. The result of this "spontaneous, unprovoked movement" was the closing of all 2,169 churches and mosques in Albania. State atheism became official policy, and Albania was declared the world's first atheist state. Religiously-based town and city names were changed, as well as personal names. During this period religiously-based names were also made illegal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enver_Hoxha

How dare I, think of atheists as zealots who have done far more damage in the name of their faulty ideology!

Now, could we argue that moustaches were responsible for his actions? After all Lenin had one too.

See above, and again, try to bring your analogies to a level before branching off to maturity!

If you're going to insist I explain the full biology of empathy, I simply can't do that.

Perhaps then you can desist on asking how I know that God is just using that same token?

So does that mean 'people who don't play golf' are a group? Or people who don't collect stamps all share the same hobby?

Atheism is a religion all its own, only starting with a double negative, whereas most folks contend 'God did it, and they don't know how' you contend, there is no God, and don't offer a solid irrefutable evidence as to how.

To you, because you don't engage on common ground.

I don't have common grounds with atheists, you are correct!

all the best

 

[Zico]

Take away God out of the equation (figure of speech) and everything crumbles that is to say whatever PhD you have you will not get exactly what we mean nor feel.

In addition in Islam we believe most of God's creation (if not all) must balance so in order to believe in Paradise, there must be an equivalent entity and that is Hell. And so on. If Paradise is eternal = Hell is eternal.

It's really as simple as that.

 

[Skavau]

Watch the video and take note of his examples. It's pretty clear: you cannot on the one hand accept God's reward of bounty (that does not parallel mankind's) and then reject His methodology on the basis it does not parallel mankind's.

It's essentially and apples vs oranges argument: If you accept for the sake of argument that paradise exists, then it is logical to accept for the sake of argument the basis of judgement of entering paradise. If you argue otherwise, then you are dealing with apples vs oranges. You can't have one without the other.

Well as you well know I don't accept the existence of 'paradise'. So the idea of accepting one without the other does not apply to me.

And onto the point, the idea of a paradise is entirely consistent with the omnibenevolent attribute of God. Hell is not.

 

[Skavau]

How is antisemitism bigotry?

Anti-semitism is prejudice and/or hostility towards Jews, either 'racially' or culturally.

I am neither hostile nor prejudiced towards theists. And it is not what anti-theism means. Click here.

There is no claim when there is study!
given that you are unstudied in the matter (even far less than most members here from a Muslim background) you don't get to decide what is perfect and what isn't.

Huh?

I'm not deciding what is infallible on behalf of others.

By the same mechanisms you determine human empathy!

Huh?

You mean like when Enver hoxha decided to implement the first atheistic state:

According to Hoxha, the surge in anti-religious activity began with the youth. The result of this "spontaneous, unprovoked movement" was the closing of all 2,169 churches and mosques in Albania. State atheism became official policy, and Albania was declared the world's first atheist state. Religiously-based town and city names were changed, as well as personal names. During this period religiously-based names were also made illegal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enver_Hoxha

How dare I, think of atheists as zealots who have done far more damage in the name of their faulty ideology!

I know about Enver Hoxha and have no intention of defending his bigotry.

So tell me, why do you take Enver Hoxha as the example of all atheists on the planet when most atheists living on the planet now are secular humanists?

Perhaps then you can desist on asking how I know that God is just using that same token?

Huh??

I'm not talking about empathy when asking you about God. I'm asking you to explain what you mean when you say 'justice'.

Atheism is a religion all its own, only starting with a double negative, whereas most folks contend 'God did it, and they don't know how' you contend, there is no God, and don't offer a solid irrefutable evidence as to how.

You ignored my point.

By your logic, people who don't play chess are engaging in a hobby. By your logic people who don't play golf are a group because they share one specific thing.

And no, I don't claim there is no God. I don't believe a God exists.

Irrespectively, how is Atheism a religion? Please back this claim up.

 

[aamirsaab]

Well as you well know I don't accept the existence of 'paradise'. So the idea of accepting one without the other does not apply to me.

As I said, for the sake of argument you would have to (and you do!). Otherwise we are bought back to being unable to argue about something you don't believe exists. So pick your fallacy.

And onto the point, the idea of a paradise is entirely consistent with the omnibenevolent attribute of God. Hell is not.

Again you are basing this on mankind's version of justice and neglecting God's but at the same time acknowledging God's reward which does not parallel that of mankind's.

 

[جوري]

Anti-semitism is prejudice and/or hostility towards Jews, either 'racially' or culturally.

I am neither hostile nor prejudiced towards theists. And it is not what anti-theism means. Click here.

As stated, I don't care for the definitions that atheist spin on terms to disencumber them from the obvious meaning. To be anti anything is to have a prejudice and hostility!

I know about Enver Hoxha and have no intention of defending his bigotry.

So tell me, why do you take Enver Hoxha as the example of all atheists on the planet when most atheists living on the planet now are secular humanists?

I thought he echoed a reality that is far better than stamps and mustaches as per previous, and in fact his bigotry was shared by other atheists who have done even far worse damage.. I am not the one who brought up how the concept of hell is damaging to society, I think you'd be far better concentrating your effort on damage to society that is less visceral than a place you don't believe in!

Huh??

I'm not talking about empathy when asking you about God. I'm asking you to explain what you mean when you say 'justice'.

And I have asked you to explain what you mean by empathy, and how I can quantify your meaning to something that is universally understood!

You ignored my point.

By your logic, people who don't play chess are engaging in a hobby. By your logic people who don't play golf are a group because they share one specific thing.

No, I see no resemblance between an organized group who have had a goal directed ideology from which millions suffered to some inane analogy about lack of hobbies!

And no, I don't claim there is no God. I don't believe a God exists.

Ok

Irrespectively, how is Atheism a religion? Please back this claim up.

It is an institution that expressed a belief, a belief that God doesn't exist..(I should rather call it a cult though given your number and your intentions)

all the best

 

[Zico]

Anti-semitism is prejudice and/or hostility towards Jews, Arabs either 'racially' or culturally.

That's what the west wants to understand it as but...

Semitic =of, relating to, or constituting a subfamily of the Afro-Asiatic language family that includes Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, and Amharic.

Don't forget that!

Irrespectively, how is Atheism a religion? Please back this claim up.

You clicky Here

 

[Skavau]

As I said, for the sake of argument you would have to (and you do!). Otherwise we are bought back to being unable to argue about something you don't believe exists. So pick your fallacy.

Okay, I'll point out the problems with the analysis. The issues with contempt with hell are not to do with a problem with judgment, or actually anything whatsoever to do with paradise - but for things that I have mentioned before, such as moral issues (punishment for what you think and torture for eternity).

Those are the very things that non-believers struggle with in accepting hell. I know you dispute the 'thought-crime' aspect but many Muslims on this forum like to state that indeed, your thoughts will determine your fate in the afterlife and determine whether you get a punishment or a reward.

If Islam was true, I would never insist to Allah to send me to heaven - rather I would protest hell based on the things above.

Again you are basing this on mankind's version of justice and neglecting God's but at the same time acknowledging God's reward which does not parallel that of mankind's.

Pointing out some supposed hypocrisy in people who criticise it does not justify eternal torture for what many consider for what you think.

 

[Skavau]

As stated, I don't care for the definitions that atheist spin on terms to disencumber them from the obvious meaning. To be anti anything is to have a prejudice and hostility!

Lol

Okay, so you're going to stick your fingers in your ears and ignore what the meaning of 'anti-theism' actually is. That's fine, but don't say I didn't predict this.

Irrespectively, I am also anti-murder, anti-fascism, anti-totalitarianism etc.

So am I prejudiced there too?

I thought he echoed a reality that is far better than stamps and mustaches as per previous, and in fact his bigotry was shared by other atheists who have done even far worse damage.. I am not the one who brought up how the concept of hell is damaging to society, I think you'd be far better concentrating your effort on damage to society that is less visceral than a place you don't believe in!

So okay, you can't defend how he is supposed to be representative of secular humanist atheists.

No, I see no resemblance between an organized group who have had a goal directed ideology from which millions suffered to some inane analogy about lack of hobbies!

Atheism is not an organised group.

An atheist is someone who does not believe in a god(s). You can get republican atheists, democrat atheists, libertarian atheists, anti-theistic atheists, humanist atheists, communist atheists. It is not organised.

It is an institution that expressed a belief, a belief that God doesn't exist..(I should rather call it a cult though given your number and your intentions)

What part of me saying "I don't contend that God does not exist" did you not understand? You even just acknowledged me saying it!

I do not make the positive claim that God does not exist. You obviously have no idea whatsoever atheism actually is.

And excuse me, my intentions? What are my intentions?

 

[Skavau]

You clicky Here

The BBC is wrong. It categorises atheism there for efficiency reasons.

 

[Yusuf Saeed]

Hello!

It's good you're still here giving replies to all of us after having been lavished with so many islamic responses. After all we should all try to agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by Skavau
What you are talking about appears to be obedience to a fixed set of orders.

I don't at all deny trying to be obedient to a fixed set of orders or rules.

But although there is no change in these rules themselves there is some minor development related to them. For example new fatwas are issued when some new problems emerge that didn't exist say 50 years ago. More than that, when one looks back in history at the development of the Islamic world compared to that of the Western world the difference is obvious and it's a fact that Muslim lands developed faster and were far better place to live in than Europe. Also, Muslims are not against the development of technology etc. So even though we want to follow the rules given to us the way they were initially it's not really correct to blame people following Islam in stagnation.

But when it comes to moral issues then I must totally disagree with you about morality being a subject of change. I'll explain it again with the Nazi Germany example where there in fact was a moral agreement in the society on killing the Jews. Now most of the world finds the killings of these 6 million Jews wrong. So based on your claim that morality is something that changes we should be able to say it was at that time alright to kill these 6 million of Jews whereas now it would be not. But that does not make sense because morality in real cannot change. At least objective morality cannot.


I also must strongly disagree with your following statement:

Morality is a societal affair and has everything to do with compromise between groups of people.

Let's take two societies, A and B. In society A 100% of the people have agreed upon that whosoever wishes may rape and kill young girls and boys whereas in society B 100% of the people have a shared opinion that such an act is wrong and thus have forbidden it.

Now based on your previous claim both of these societies are living according to morality. But would that be the reality? Obviously not.
But to say that the society A is objectively morally wrong we need to have some standard that the atheists lack. We have God as our standard and can thereby objectively say that society A is living in a very wrong way.

I don't base my morality on society.

What is your morality then based on?



You say that empathy is the closest thing we have to objective morality. I must argue that it is the opposite, empathy is rather subjective. Empathy is mostly based on people's feelings and emotions which differ a lot. You can have for example a group of people who empathize with a little raped boy and you can just as well have another group of people who do not empathize with that same boy and would perhaps even want to commit that act of rape themselves. We can't deny that there are many people living in this world with such horrible desires.

How does 'objective morality' work? How does a God existing mean that a behavioural standard somehow becomes 'objective'? And if indeed, God does exist and decrees all of morality - then what does the purpose of morality become?

Morality is objective only when it is based on God because God is the only source we have that transcends the human subjectivity and because whatever humans come up with themselves and claim it to be moral or not is completely subjective and has no basis. As God does exist, one purpose of morality would obviously to support a healthy survival of human societies as with no morals everyone would behave just like animals. Another purpose of morality is probably to test people in whether they will follow moral rules given to them or not (roughly whether they'll be good or not). But for completely understanding the objective morality I think it all comes down to understanding the concept of God and believing in it.

That is why I'd like to ask you that what's your idea about how this whole Universe came to existence and if you believe in any supreme power that may have played some role in the beginning of all this?

Take care!