Mykob4,

Thank you for your post. I think however you should reread my responses to your comments. I provide adequate analogies that are backed up by historical evidence - that is how they are directly related which I stated. It is a way of showing the history of what happen and the logic of how it works all in summary. I'm not sure if you carefully read my post. Perhaps you did. I can link that evidence if you like. My prior responses render your comments on the different translations and "missing stories" of scripture mute. You would have to disprove the logic of my analogies which you have yet to do. Also to call them childish without providing adequate proof that they are is also a mute point. You stating that I cannot use abstract reasoning including analogies is also a mute point. So long as we are debating it is right and good to utilize all forms of rationalization and abstract reasoning so long as they connect and are appropriate which I have supported. Thats like saying in a boxing match "you're winning no fair you can't use both arms now." If you cannot defend against the analogy then saying that I can't use them (though you have no authority to limit me) is a mute point.

Also I think you stating that certain things are facts that many Atheists whom I have spoken to say are not provable is not being intellectually honest. Your stance should be one of neutrality even if there is a bias. I feel that it would be more logical to state that there is not enough evidence in your opinion to state objective morals as a fact or not a fact and therefore we will go with best educated guess subjective morality. But of course in a morally objectionless world you do not have to listen to me.

(on a side note if your only evidence is to say that mark don't universally state the resurrection and therefore it didn't happen then you have to also read the scripture's more carefully. All four gospels including Mark state that Jesus was raised from the dead: see Matthew 28:1-20; Mark 16:6-8 as well as the Mark 16:9-20 that you're disputing about; Luke24:1-50; and John chapter 20 and 21. This list doesn't include the other books of the NT that affirm the Resurrection of Christ. Jesus was raised from the dead according to the eyewitness testimony of the apostles, and other evidence which I'm sure is worthy of another thread and your book in question states it even without the section in dispute. I know this is not the core of your argument but it needs to be said since its the implication of your argument.)

After reading your comments however, I realized that you landed where I feel all atheist should land. That with your perspective there are no objective morals. Since you've stated that then you have to deal with the consequences of that world and its arbitrary regulations and rules. You have stated that my statement of the consequences are stupid; however, again you do not prove how it is stupid with logical argumentation, which again makes a mute point. Because of this trend I would appreciate it if you supported your conclusions with premises otherwise you're just throwing around weightless accusation.

Here is a question for you to answer now that we are kind of on the same page.

If your country at large decided to take your house and all your possessions because everyone just "decided" randomly without any reasoning that it was good to do. What could you apeal to to stop them? If you appealed to the law and current subjective majority rules what if they in response collectively changed them that day... again what could you appeal to to stop them. You could say "that's not right, that's stealing, but who says that's wrong? You? They say its right so its right according to your reasoning to them and they therefore can take your house. What can you appeal to to stop them? If society changed it's rules overnight to take your possessions what could you appeal to, to stop them? You can call that society bad but who cares you are just a man and your morality against a majority means nothing. If they decided to ship you off to a concentration camp who are you to say otherwise? You can say so but you're not the majority so who cares? This is how Hitler connects. Hitler is a standard case of measuring a world of morality. You have no more right within the rules of your world to say that he is a bad person than you do to say that red is the best color in the world (if you believed that) and then to kill people according to that belief. Its arbitrary for you or any group of entities to act upon opinion (which is what subjective morality becomes). John Doe could make a law that says everyone who doesn't eat ice cream every day will die and there's no higher standard to say that he'd be wrong to do so. Nothing higher just more collective. Mob mentality. The majority can make whatever rules they want so long is there a majority. Which is the same as survival of the fittest which makes sense because in an Atheist world evolution is most likely god and morality will most likely be set by that principle.

So lets go back to the beginning as you say.
The video makes a claim that objectivity in its true definition cannot be applied to morality without God. This is true; if not please prove otherwise.
I am not of the opinion that without objective morality that morality doesn't exist but rather that it is relegated to subjective morality which is the same thing as opinion which is the same thing as saying red is the best color in the world, therefore it is.

In this thread I am ok if you guys do not believe in God. However, the consequence is then to say that morals exist but they can only be subjective and never objectively moral and therefore truly objectively binding. This is my closing statement to you MyKob4 since we are mostly on the same page in where I've wanted you to land. I'll now engage with others and then return to you when I have time! =] (I haven't forgotten about you. I just want to give others time as well; also, I think you have some re-reading to do of my prior comments before I re-engage because I have made many arguments that you have not disprove so we can't really move on unless you engage them. You of course would say the same about me proving God first but in my prior arguments as well I've shown how proving God is not required for this particular thread because of the limitation of the argument initially provided. Yes eventually we should and will debate about that. But now is not the time. Please disprove logically what I have said earlier and I will return to engage with your rebuttals if you so choose to do so.)

These "stipulations" are actually just logical rules that existed before I stated them and have now only become relevant given your argument. There are 100's of thousands of arguments and logical rules that both of us haven't stated because until we run into them they are not needed. Just because you have not cited or stated every single argument and proof that can be made does not mean that the a logical refutation that you bring up is invalid. The proof is in the logic no matter when it is brought up. Your argument rests upon this one premise:

If I did not bring it up before then it is not logical.
I did not bring up my "stipulations" before (though what I brought up was logical argumentation)
Therefore my argument is funny with the nuance of your later statements just a way of ruling out counter arguments.

You are right. If someone brings up a counter point that is not logical then I will bring up an objectively logical principle to refute it whether or not I have stated it before. I believe that this is typical of argumentation. Because of all of this I am failing to see how a "you must bring everything up before or its not fair" argument is a valid one.

to your second point... are you saying that in order to establish a fact you need a CONTEMPORARY source? Does that mean that if for 50 years no text book/article is written on The American revolution then it didn't happen because we cannot find a contemporary source? Are you saying that because no one from this era saw the American revolution that it didn't happen because there isn't a contemporary eye witness testimony?

How is it that historians like Josephus and the eye witness testimony of the Bible and other artifacts are not evidence? In a court of law (since someone brought it up earlier) ALL evidence would be considered (historical and contemporary). There are still books being written researching the proved existence of Jesus Christ CONTEMPORARY and the scriptures and other documents also claim by way of eye witness testimony that he existed HISTORICAL. ALL of this should be considered. Secondly, the disciples did write and believed that what they wrote is true and confirmed their beliefs with the blood of martyrdom. Therefore, my example does pass both hurdles.

There are way to many proofs that he was a man that existed in history. Your argument to say otherwise is a really old and disproved one. http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/je... Sorry I haven't checked all of this source to make sure that it is well backed. I'm responding to too many others to do so properly. Also, the existence of Jesus is another discussion for another thread which we should do. Here I am simply attempting to show that according to Atheists there are no objective morals. From that we have to look at what the implications of that are.

Lastly, you would say the same thing to me if I were taking about science and used a similar example from fiction:

for example:
Science says that gravity is real
the matrix has Neo flying and defying gravity therefore both claims are absurd.

you would or at least should turn around and say: 1) the matrix was intended to be fictional science is not and 2) what does science back. This is exactly what I did and though you I could say that you didn't bring this up before, that doesn't mean that what you said was not true.