Is The Biblical God Morally Better Than Humans

More Misunderstanding Of TermsWell we're off to a bad start since I never actually stated that atheism is subjective because that doesn't even make sense. What I stated was that there are many atheists and each have different beliefs on certain things but the point was that they all share one thing, the lack of belief in god which is all that atheism claims. Well it's not really an opinion more than a conclusion that I came to through logical reasoning but we'll get to that later. Your argument of "there needs to be an objective standard in order for something to be subject to criticism" is completely fallacious. Criticism does not rely on an objective standard it simple relies on that the critic deems good or bad. Take movie reivews for an example. Is there some perfect movie to set the standard to which all movies are held to? Of course not! Movies are reviewed based on their content from a critics perspective and in the context of that review (just like this debate) the critics perspective would be that "objective" standard even though it isn't really objective. It's a weird concept. From this we can see that I have debunked the proposition that "an objective morality does exist" from your conclusion of "god exists" so you'll have to go back and rethink that. Well it's simple to define atheism, it's the lack of belief in a god. That was easy! Seriosly though it's almost like you tried to miss the point. I was making a point that you cannot lump all atheists into having the same view of the world as worldviews are all different across all people and that the only PART of a worldview that all atheists share is that they lack a belief in a deity. And again not ALL atheists believe that morals are subjective. I happen to however. Again making a judgement based on ones moral philosophy doesn't inherently discredit any argument that they may have simply because moral philosophies are subjective. "Why say anything or voice moral disapproval at all" well for the same reason film, game, and tv critics voice their pleasure or displeasure at their respective media. Because it conflicts with that we percieve as right and we feel the need to speak up about it with rational arguments. I never actually even talked about "social norms". I talked about social BENEFITS but those to things are certainly not the same.To answer your two questions.Mine, which is to say the moral philosophy of utilitarianism (although I don't follow all the tenets very closely I do agree with the overarching theme, much like many religious people). Utilitarianism is essentially this: "Utilitarianism is a very simple view that matches common sense – right and wrong can be determined by a cost-benefit analysis. We must consider all the good and bad consequences when deciding if an action is right. Utilitarians disagree about what counts as “good” or “bad.” Some think that fulfilling desires is good and thwarting desires is bad, classic utilitarians think that happiness is good and suffering is bad, and pluralists believe that there are multiple “intrinsic goods” that are worth promoting. An action will then be said to be “right” as long as it satisfactorily causes good consequences compared to alternative actions, and it will be “wrong” if it doesn’t."2. Well because mine is actually evident to be existent while god's is not. By my moral philosophy of utilitarianism genocide is wrong as it causes uneeded suffering which is inherently detrimental to indivuals, societies, and species as a whole. Considering I have never commited these acts and god has I can therefore conclude that I am morally superior to god as a character. https://ethicalrealism.wordpress.com...;