"Morality" itself is a tool invented by man, to be used by man, to help mankind live better lives.Mac believes that morality is subjective.
Within that framework, one might argue that one particular rule or another is so plainly beneficial as to be "objectively" true.
Subjective doesn't become objective just because it "is so plainly beneficial". Objective means that the source of Moral Law is outside the human mind. That is what atheists deny. In denying the objectivity of morality, atheists admit that murder would be morally right if all (or most) humans agreed it was.
If something were objectively true in the sense I think you are trying to use, then that would mean it's true independent of the state of mankind.Yes.
Therefore, by your logic, even if mankind suddenly ceased to exist (say, a black hole swallowed up Earth), murder would still be wrong.
Yet without any human beings around to define murder and right and wrong, the concept of murder (and concepts in general for that matter) ceases to exist.I'm a Christian. I believe in the existence of sentient beings even if there were no men. The concept of murder would still exist. And it would still be morally wrong.
Therefore all moral rules exist only relative to humanity.
Only if one accepts atheism. I don't.This renders your original question ("Do you really believe... of our opinions?") as inappropriate as, say, asking "if pigs can fly, why do you think the sky is green?
Even the terms, "objective," and "subjective," represent human concepts... they are tools humans use to help us understand the universe by breaking it down into categories. Categories which are subjective to our own experience, by the way.
If you jump off a cliff, is the result objective or subjective? Is the event at the moment you hit the ground merely a matter of your opinion? Or does it have a reality independent of you?
And that definition is subjective to humanity, not god (who does not exist anyway).Then you believe that killing innocent people or raping children is only wrong if people believe it to be so, and that it would be right if people believed it right. You and I disagree on that.
That's a nonsensical answer, but that's what you get when you ask a nonsensical question!The question made a lot of sense. It's perhaps the most important question a society can ask. Your answer was nonsensical though, so you're half right.
I must admit that debating atheists has made me a much more convinced Christian. As Peter said in John 6:68, when asked by Jesus if he would leave Him: "Where else would I go?"
There is nowhere else to go.
When I first became a Christian, I feared rational refutation. I feared that there was a strong argument to be made against belief in God. I am no longer afraid. I am astonished at the weakness of the atheist arguments, not least on the question of the objectivity of moral law.
Of course the Moral Law is objective. Atheism is a willfully ignorant ideology.