Morality is just a word we use to describe our opinions regarding what is "right" or "wrong". It does not exist as some sort of entity or concrete thing.
You want to know what is truly ironic about your argument? The irony is that you have thoroughly demonstrated that your argument for subjective morality is not based on knowledge or science…. which you adamantly require of the theist to provide to substantiate their belief in God. In other words, the non-theist holds that the theist position is based on faith and other subjective assertions and not on reality and thus is irrational.
I can sort of understand you up to here. You are right up to here. I have not used science to argue for subjective morality. I have used reason and logic, so far
. What empirical evidence could you or I present in defense of the notion that morality is or is not objective? Let me try...
Would you, or would you not say that being charitable is part of one's moral world view? I would say yes. Well, guess what... Let me cut and paste this...
A new study has suggested that those who give more to charity and are more kind to strangers have above-normal levels of the hormone oxytocin in the brain. This also means that tightfisted people have comparatively lower levels of oxytocin in their brain.
The study, conducted by Professor Paul Zak, a professor of economics and director of the Center for Neuroeconomics Studies at Claremont Graduate University in California, the United States, and colleagues revealed a huge increase in generosity linked to higher levels of oxytocin.
In the study, Professor Paul Zaks team gave doses of oxytocin and a placebo to participants, who were then offered a decision on how to split a sum of money with a stranger who could accept or reject the split.
To their utter surprise, the researchers found that those given oxytocin offered 80% more money than those who were given a placebo.
INTERESTING!! What does that say? That Oxytocin levels effect the level of one's generosity. In other words, the more oxytocin you have in your brain, the more generous you are! Is that not scientific proof that levels of generosity are completely subject to how much oxytocin we have? You wanted it, you got it. We now have scientific proof that at least this aspect of morality is not from "on-high" It is from hormone levels, and thus can vary depending upon how much or how little oxytocin we have. I have now offered you one scientific study in support of my case that morality (at least one aspect of it) is not from any type of god. Can you give me any science or knowledge information to back up your claim that it does?
But it goes on to say something else relevant that I didn't know...
According to the study, there is even evidence that, in American society, the levels of oxytocin in the brain are increasing, as annual levels of charity in the United States have gone up by 187% since 1954.
Wasn't it you that said morality is in decline? Yes, I think it was!
Yet, you are doing the exact same thing in making your argument here…..for as soon as you point to science or concrete knowledge, morality becomes subjective by default. Now, that’s irony !!
This sentence I do not understand at all. What are you talking about here? You seem as confused as MathIsCool. At least he admits massive confusion though.
If science and knowledge, reason and logic all pointed directly to the idea that all morality was objective, then I would embrace that as truth. It would be easy. All you would have to do is prove that every single person on the planet will behave in exactly the same way when faced with every single moral decision that ever was. That would be a great starting point in trying to prove that morality is objective. If you can not make that claim, then how can you say that all of our morality is the same and that we got it from the same place? You clearly can't do that. So why not just give up this crazy fight. Morality is subjective. Deal with it.