At this point in time, I believe that yes, objective moral values are moral values that are independent of the belief of human beings.

I am very curious at this point, what are the religious responses to that argument that you hear? Why are they unconvincing? I would love to hear your opinion on why they are unconvincing to you. Keep in mind, I am referring to both the logical and evidential problem of evil. If you also carry the emotional problem of…

I can give my belief explanatory power via philosophical arguments for the existence of a classically theistic God, as well as historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That, including my own personally experience, cumulatively helps meets my own requirements for belief in "one particular mythology…

It's not random, actually. It is very much guided by a mind—mine.

Interesting development. But wouldn't you just be replacing "right" with "accurate?" And what is the point of a compass that doesn't point to true North, but shifts all over the place? Nobody would find their way out of a forest with an inaccurate compass, right?

I believe that any regime, like Saddam's, which oppresses its people abuses their power and human rights, and should not be allowed to stand for much longer. That said however, killing innocent people with bombs, and destruction of their property is also wrong. That is what I sincerely believe.

Oh I'm not suggesting that you need to be religious to be moral. But I would like to know what is it that tells you suffering is morally bad? If everyone else told you that suffering is good, and we should spread it, would you believe that? Or would you still instinctively understand that suffering is bad?

No, it's based on a lack of historical evidence, as well as philosophical arguments that propose that if a God exists, he has to be a classically theistic God. Thor is, as cool as he is, not a being of that level.

Different philosophical arguments for the existence of a classically theistic God, as well as the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ, hedges my bets and points me in the direction of the Christian faith. That is of course, just my own opinion.

I do believe that there is an objective foundation of moral duties and values, as I believe a world completely operating with subjective morality would be unlivable.

It was one of the many arguments I examined, I suppose, though not in the formal sense nor did I know it as Pascal's Wager. I basically asked myself: what have I to lose, and what have I to gain (both including opportunity costs and benefits) from believing?

That is true, but in that same sense, we can't exactly prove that the natural world of physical objects exists either. After all, we could just be bodies lying in the Matrix experiencing VR.

Well, as a theist, I do believe that God, as the creator of the universe, has a mind. So it agrees with your premise that morality does not predate minds ;)

Sure, but I'm afraid what I consider to be shreds of evidence, you may not consider it to be. That was why I was asking what *you* would consider to be evidence.

Different philosophical arguments for the existence of a classically theistic God, as well as the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ, hedges my bets and points me in the direction of the Christian faith. That is of course, just my own opinion. Obviously you have a different one =)

Actually, I was brought up as a fairly devout Buddhist in South East Asia. I only converted to Christianity after a combination of examining evidence as well as personal experience.

Different philosophical arguments for the existence of a classically theistic God, as well as the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ, hedges my bets and points me in the direction of the Christian faith. That is of course, just my own opinion. Obviously you have a different one =)

That's a great moral philosophy to live by, and I find it by turns equally admirable and also funny.

Well, I'm asking that since morality is completely subjective, the only difference between the Nazis' morality, and our morality is personal preference. Then what right do we have in trying to prevent people who think like that from acting on their preferences? After all, it's all relative to each person.

In an atheistic context, why would they be morally wrong? I know there are morally wrong, and you agree that they are morally wrong, but why are they wrong in a subjective context?