The problem I see is not the fact that I personally disapprove of genocide.
The problem arises if certain actions of biblegod do not match the standards of biblegod´s allegedly objective/absolute morality.
Once we learn that biblegod has commanded X himself
(and thus we learn that X is morally justifiable by biblegod´s standards) arguments of the sort "Without God X would be permissible" become absurd, and statements of the sort "I wouldn´t do X, because I know God wouldn´t command me to do X" (even though we learn that biblegod has done so before) become untenable.
IOW: When reading the bible we learn that with God almost everything is permissible, and we learn that God is a moral relativist.
But then, if there is such a God with the qualities identified by Christians, Jews, and Muslims, then He gets to be a moral relativist, or He would not be that God.
But we don't even get to that point: The morality can be very justly related to a situation and circumstance. I think most people on this thread can agree, for instance, that uttering a falsehood might be a "good" thing or a "bad" thing depending on the circumstances and the intended outcome.
If a moral authority specifies beforehand that the circumstances of uttering falsehoods are good (such as transmitting misinformation to the enemy during war, or telling the Nazis "Those Jews you're looking for are not here") and the circumstances that uttering falsehoods are bad (such as when questioned by the moral authorities own executive agents), then there is not really a case of moral relativism. The "moral law" is
not "lying is bad." The moral law is "Lying to me is bad; lying to my enemy is good."
A bigger question here, though, is "what is morality and what is its basis?"
Interestingly, theists assert the existence of absolute morality and atheists tend to resist that concept...but
everyone acts is if absolute morality exists.
For theists I pose this: Is God the moral authority and the basis of morality, or is God merely the transmitter of a moral code that is bigger than He is? If God is the moral authority, then by definition, all His commands are moral...period. If God is merely the transmitter of a moral code that He himself must adhere to, then He is not the God we think He is...He is subject to yet a higher moral authority.
For atheists I pose this:
1. A broader definitoin of "god." I propose that every person's "god" = "That which is the bases of his moral decions." For whatever decision you make (especially a moral decision), whatever was the basis of that decision is effectively your "god."
2. Do you believe an absolute morality exists beyond your own judgment? If so, how do you discern it?
3. If you discern it by means of your own intellectual judgment, what makes your intellectual judgment superior to someone else's when they differ? Which is "right" and how do you know it?
