I try to expand my understanding

But it will never be enough

That is what my thought process is

It's not

and this is what pissed me off earlier

which is why debates involving religious objectivity vs atheist subjectivity will always result in a stalemate

My thought process isn't

"We view morality differently so you have no basis to criticize others"

that's horseshit

unless the religious becomes atheist or the atheist converys

yea, I know not all subjective thinkers are "well, thats just your opinion maaaaaaaaan"

they arent ALL hippie retards

I don't argue against Christianity from a position of moral authority

I don't even argue against Christianity that often, I can't recall a time I have here or in other servers

but I'm a "fedora tipper"

they tend to become standstills

The main issue I have are these retarded standards that nobody can realistically meet

in these types of arguments

unless its evangelical vs libatheist then it turns into a cringe fest because the evangelical decided to bring up Leviticus

anyways

now that this is long over

someone explain to me what was wrong with me refusing to answer that extreme hypothetical presented earlier

`let's say you're part of society A & your group has a rampant shortage of women, which will lead to the death of your group due to lack of procreation, rape is the only option to survive. Given that morality is subjective & you are part of this group, is it morally right for you to abduct & rape the women of neighboring tribes to survive?`

I say, if your hypothetical has no genuine application, the hypothetical is meaningless and warrants no response

Also, it hinges upon a set selection of answers

Which is a dishonest tactic, at least in this case

>the only option to procreate is to rape your neighboring tribe

Such retarded bullshit

Someone let me know if and how I am wrong, because this seemed contentious earlier

"if God told you to molest a child, would you do it?"

is about as nonsensical as this question

This was the response I should have given earlier

it's also frivolous for another reason, you would expect it to be wrong when your opponents gives a "yes" answer, but, when the same question is asked towards you, with God giving these instructions (to rape another tribe), you yourself would say yes (obviously God wouldn't do that, we're playing in the realm of this retarded hypothetical)

So then, how does this reflect poorly on me?

It's also the idea of 1-0 absolutes, obviously there are greater virtues that outweight others, disobeying one to follow another isn't a good this, it's a less bad thing.

it's wrong when you think that I would do it, but not for you?

This question was just dunb

I'm thinking through ways it could be considered a valid question and there are none

If God told him to commit a cardinal sin he would do it, because piety is a higher virtue than being unsinful

Yeah

This hypothetical is meant to strip the focus down to one virtue