Because I stated that the claim morality being objective is incoherent and your response was (if I remember correctly) something along the lines of "Exactly!"
From your perspective, yes.
So I take it that you yourself did not believe also that morality as objective.
No, I believe morality is objective. My Worldview grants me that.
For example, the White Rose movement knew precisely what they were getting into it and yet began their campaign anyway - do you think that they deserved any punishments that they had coming to them?
I already explained that the Nazi oppression of Jews was unjust. So the White rose movement were justified in acting. As I said:
"Jews were simply being targeted in virtue of what they are, not due to any actions or crimes they committed. They had no choice in the matter. There is a fundamental difference between that and, say, being punished due to committing public apostasy in a community where it is illegal. So your Godwin attempt simply fails."
But this is all besides the point. From you natural atheistic perspective there was nothing objectively wrong about what the Nazis were doing.
From your perspective. I am asking you. I'll speak for my own perspective, and it is neither 'atheistic' or 'amoral' when it comes to morality.
I told you. I believe in God's Laws. AS for your own perspective you morality is totally subjective and the product of whim.
But I can claim they are wrong - and ultimately, that is all that is required to be moral.
I can claim that banana ice cream is wrong and immoral too.
The foundation of my own understanding of morality is that people's own personal liberty is the only real thing that matters and the only actual thing that morality ought to cater itself towards.
That's just your subjective opinion. From a naturalistic perspective, there is no law of the universe that states that personal liberty is valuable and should be the foundation for morality. You've just arbitrarily made that up.
The only 'evidence' I need for this is that we all desire to be free.
You're equating desirable=good. There is no logical basis for this. One could equally claim desirable=bad.
We all desire to live our own lives as we choose free from unwanted intervention or control. Given that we are a social species - things that best assist this are things such as ideals that further and benefit humans co-existing in a group. We should only consider what ought in the context of how it effects others personal freedom.
Why is Human coexistance an objective value? Any statement asserting that it is is necessarily arbitrary in a naturalistic world-view. In short, your morality is arbitrary and irrational.
This has a lot to do with ensuring that our own personal self-interest is met, and indeed might be what morality is based on but I have no problem with this.
Same criticism applies. See above.
Again, you cannot pretend to understand how people think based on a lack of belief.
Naturalism is a positive metaphysical stance about the nature of reality. I'm not referring to agnosticism. Atheism by the way is a positive claim, not merely an absence of belief.
The 'God-morality' system is nothing more than an elaborate might equals right system. It is, and can be an enabler to atrocity because it distorts what morality should be about.
That's a very naive understanding of theistic morality.
What part of born into it did you not read? As I said, if you're born into an Islamic state then you have no say over what you can do and should you desire to apostate you would be forced to leave, possibly secretly and without declaring your position in order to avoid rammifications.
It makes no difference. If I was born and brought up in a rented flat, I'd still have to pay the rent after my parents die.
This is not complaining about paying for lunch, this is about complaining about being force-fed.
Stop being so hyperbolic. The door is always open. Nobody is forcing you to do anything.
So how is that objective?
By definition, it is.
A group of evangelical zealots from the Bible Belt could secede from the United States and decree it 'God's Law'. The rest of us would just look at them funny.
So what?
How would you determine it to someone else that does not share your metaphysical viewpoints that indeed, your state is founded on 'God's Law'?
You can't without accepting the Religious individual's premises.
