You say the Aztecs were wrong with respect to your own personal standard.
Not exactly. He is saying that child sacrifice is wrong to him. He is also saying that child sacrifice was not wrong to the Aztecs. Unless I am mistaken, he is not making the claim that the Aztecs were wrong, perse. What I think you get so hung up on is the notion that the way we state our opinions come off as if we are stating objective facts. That's just our language.
I dislike spicy food.
While I'd certainly say I dislike Jalapeño peppers, I would never think to say my friend Dave ought dislike them because I dislike them.
No, but you would say... I don't like Jalapeño peppers. And you would also say... Dave likes Jalapeño peppers. Stop there. There's nothing more to it. The same applies to the rest of the 7 billion people on the planet. Everyone has a different opinion on peppers. You may not understand WHY someone likes Jalapeño peppers, just like you may not understand WHY the Aztecs were OK with child sacrifice, but that doesn't change the fact that Dave likes peppers, and the Aztecs were cool with child sacrifice.
It would never cross my mind to take what are my own personal tastes and apply them to someone else eating a Jalapeño pepper.
Unless you felt eating Jalapeño peppers was extremely important or that eating Jalapeño peppers was a great injustice. That's where the term 'moral' comes in. It has to do with a distinction we humans make between value judgements and non-value judgements. They are all still opinions though. How many times do we have to keep going over this with you? You're just not right. This is the way it works. Get over it. You lost this argument months ago before you came back.
If morality were truly subjective, the question "Were the Aztecs wrong to do what they do, according to my own personal morality" would be akin to asking "Is Dave enjoying that Jalapeño pepper he is eating right now, according to my own personal tastes?"
Aztecs killing children = value judgement. Moral issue. Right or wrong apply at a subjective level. "I think what the Aztecs did was wrong."
Eating peppers = non-value judgement. Non-moral issue. Right or wrong does not apply. "I don't like peppers."
The question "Were the Aztec's wrong to do what they did?" can only (as far as we can prove) be answered by individuals, not as some sort of collective consciousness. When those individuals answer yes or no, what are they giving you? Their OPINION. If they say, "Yes, the Aztec's were wrong," you might ask, "Why were they wrong?". Then they might say, "Because killing children is bad." and you might say, "Why is killing children bad?". This could go on for a long time, but at the heart of it all is the personally formed opinion that either A. God says killing children is bad, or B. I believe killing children is bad. If you want to claim A is the better answer, then you must prove God exists, prove that God gives us morality, and prove that God thinks killing children is bad.
But then your work really begins! Then, you have to determine God's moral judgement is regarding every single moral issue we are facing, have faced, and will face in the future. Because whether you know it or not; if God forms a specific moral judgement about killing children, then He forms a moral judgement about everything. It means there IS a right answer (and consequently, a whole shit load of wrong answers) to every moral problem. From whether or not to give that woman in the grocery line your last 5 dollars (thereby not feeding your own child a meal), to "Is homosexuality wrong?", to the age old moral problem of 'if you're driving a train that is going to run off the tracks, is it better to ram into the family of 3 with a dog, or the family of 4'? You also have to explain away why so many people have different opinions, when God is the source of it all in the first place. Until you've done ANY of that, the "morality is a value based opinion" theory explains all instances naturally without the necessity of an outside moral law giver.
To the proponents of subjective morality on this thread:
Many cultures throughout history have thought child sacrifice was commendable. Clearly, we don't hold to that practice now.
Were they wrong? (In your opinion, of course.)
You don't need to add the (In your opinion) part. We already know it's our opinion. It's just a moral opinion, and it is likely you already know the answer. Part of me believes this is your attempt to appeal to our emotional reaction to child sacrifice... to try and get us to give in to the power of those feelings in order to make us think (if only for a moment) that our opinions might really be objectively true... but what you might not understand is that most atheists aren't as susceptible to that as religious people. Our feelings are tempered by logic and reason more than yours likely are.
Let me ask you this... What is your opinion on child sacrifice, and how does it differ from Gods? If you believe you have a good answer, then how did you determine what God's judgement was on child sacrifice? Did you ask Him?
Also, do you have a moral position about anything that you are sure differs from Gods position? Or does God always like what you like, and dislike what you dislike?