God and Objective Morality

William Lane Craig
From wikipedia

One philosophical attack thrown by Christians to atheist is the statement:

"Without God, there is no objective morality!"

This attack is so liked by Christians, even their best apologist at this time, William Lane Craig, often use it. He use fancy rhetorics to mask the emptiness of this argument, but in the end it is still an empty argument.I already told you that one of the simplest way to answer this is just laugh and answer back:

"if objective morality means incest, I'll use subjective one!"

That is how to REACT against that attack, defensive. There is a way to make a preemptive attack, offensive, against this argument. Just propose a dilemma:

"Which one is the case? Is it (objectively) moral because God said so, OR God said so because it is (objectively) moral?"

If it is moral because God said so, continue in the line "So, that means incest, genocide, and slavery are all morally correct? Really? Sorry, morally correct is not strong enough. They were obligatory in many cases in the Bible! Is that you want to say?" You can also say "So might is right? That sounds subjective to me ..."

If God said so because it is moral, you can ask back "so God was limited by morality? Then He is not God. Oh, by the way, genocide is still wrong. Looks like your God do a lousy job in obeying morality."

I myself think the 1st answer is the more coherent one. Hey, if God only ordered morally correct things, why the incest, slavery, and genocide? It is more logically coherent, but it is not morally correct. Remember, this God is the one who demanded us to love Him more than our children, threaten us with eternal torture if we refuse, and He ordered all of these nonsense while He can do wrong. And the preachers are still have the nerve to ask me to obey Him?

But the argument is even a bigger and emptier hollow shell than I thought because we NEVER have any IRREFUTABLE evidence that religious moral codes come from God Himself. As far as I know, it is more probable that some dude in ancient times won a war and branded his law as "God's law." Even moreso, the Bible and so many other holy scriptures are not an easy read. They need to be ... interpreted to be used as guidance. So, we can argue back "What objective morality? Where is the evidence that this come from God? Why these laws need INTERPRETATION? As far as I know, you can't escape SUBJECTIVITY in interpretation. Ergo, your argument about objective morality is nonsense, you never offer it to me, you only offer me YOUR subjective morality, but you mask it with God's label to make it looks fancy ... and objective!"

So that is the paradox: If God exists, then atheists, agnostics, deists, freethinkers, and other people who never mention God when they debate ethics actually are the people who respect God most since they never try to claim their words as God's, or torturing and slaying in thousands in the name of God, slandering His name. Yay! Here is a good one-liner to close this writing, for you people who still want to believe in God: 

"Be a Deist to Respect God!"