Do Religious People Really Believe in Their Religion?

[sinnerdexter]

You misunderstand the doctrine of omnipotence. What it means is that God can do anything which can be done, not that God can do anything which sinnerdexter can say. Asserting that he can control our every move and leave us with free will is like saying he can draw a four-sided figure and it will be a triangle.

Jimmy Akin does an excellent job explaining this point here:

jimmyakin.org/2010/08/th.html

LOL. God created suffering, so then would He not have the power to uncreate it, or not create it in the first place…

So Cain swings his club at Abel, and is instantly transported to an alternate reality where Abel is some kind of simulacrum? In this new reality, Cain clobbers Abel; in the first reality, robot Cain gives Abel a big hug?

So every sin results in the creation of a brand new reality populated with homonculi that exist only to do the sinner’s bidding. It won’t be long until every human on earth is isolated in their own little pocket realities, interacting only with these faked instances.

Have you heard of the “Many Worlds” interperetation of Quantum Mechanics, this is similar to that (instead of sin though, it is every time an interaction between particles occurs).

God, could then cause these seperate realities to merge again later. Again, using Quaqntum Mechancis and the Many World interperetation of it, these mergers would be like the “Sum over Histories” that are used to calculate quantum behaviours.

This means such “Many Worlds” interperetation of Sin actually makes a mathematical sense and thus comes under what is posible. So, as you siad, God can do anyhting that is posible, and if He can create a Universe, why not more, and why not use that power to eliminate suffering.

You think this would actually be superior to the Christian view that God actually respects our choices? That our acts have some sort of impact on the world, beyond our private personal sandboxes? Suit yourself, I guess. But you’re not presenting any sort of logical argument against God here, you’re simply pouting that he doesn’t do things the way you like.

The set of all even numbers is limited, but infinite.

In this, the choices are still respected, just that God uses His power (that the bible says He has) to eliminate suffering. As God can eliminate suffering, then why does He allow it.

So to sum up:

1. God created suffering (or at least our capacity to suffer)
2. Not all suffering is necesary (that is suffering is not needed to teach)
3. With the suffering that does exist, there are way to avoid it that are logically possible (as it is possible to figrive without the need of suffering, therefore redemptive suffering is not necesary)
4. God does not do anything to stop us experiencing this suffering

therefore, either:
A) God does not exist
God wants us to suffer for the sake of suffering

This measn that either God does not exist or God is cruel (and thus not a God I would want to worship if He did exist - fear yes, but not worship).

 

[R_Daneel]

Yes, but the here and now have no ultimate meaning. It’s the affirmation of something which is ULTIMATELY accidental, ULTIMATELY meaningless and without ultimate value. It could not exist and that would mean nothing also - ULTIMATELY. So, it’s a negation of the value of everything.

Only the negation of “ultimate”. Not the negation of “everything”. How many times do I have to point out the difference?

Why do you say God holds it as a higher right? Because He permits it? But if he did not permit it, or any other evil, there would be no free will.

Not true. In a world in which the victim’s free will prevails is just as free as the one in which the attacker’s free will prevails. (Read the first officer below in the link)

Ok, but the important part of the answer which is missing is “why?”

Simple. Because we all (really ALL) prefer not to be trampled on (even the psychpaths and the socipaths). Because most of us - the exception being the sociopaths and psycopaths - are willing to see the fellow human beings as “brothers” and “sisters”. And since we are “selfish” - meaning that we want the best for ourselves - we understand that our well-being is intimately tied to the well-being of others. You see, the answer is simple, and has absolutely NO need for the God-hypothesis.

The short answer to your question is Free Will. A world of continual divine intervention in every decision would be a world without human agency.

Nonsense. You just repeat the excuse of the first officer. infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/five.html

Also, you (or anyone else) could never make a sound argument just “why” is free will so “valuable”. Usually it is just a reference to “love”. And a dumb response like: “would you prefer if your wife would be an automaton, who has no choice, but love you?”. Which shows that the person confuses eros and agape. Eros is emotionally driven, agape is not. If someone “sacrifices” oneself for the benefit of others, it does not matter, if there was volition or emotion involved. Think it over. Why would you care if a doctor’s help comes out of sense of duty, or out of compassion? The result is the same - you get help.

 

[R_Daneel]

Seems to me I read that but was not assured by the premises. Would you mind pointing to the thread, whenever you get a chance.

I could not find it. It was such a long time ago. So I decided to make a new thread, and I will be honored to see your (name removed by moderator)ut there. The title is: “Returning to an old argument”.

 

[LilyM]

I would tend to disagree with this sentiment.

If God does not exist (or more to the point, if an afterlife does not exist and we ‘fade to black’ for good upon death) then causing pain and suffering is even MORE evil than if he does. For killing someone, even though their death is inevitable, has a lesser consequence if their consciousness lives on than if it does not. If there is an afterlife, killing a human being merely ‘resets’ their state of consciousness to one which purportedly is better than this existence in the first place.

I must heartily disagree here. Mainstream Christianity teaches (as Christ taught) that many if not most of us don’t go on to a better place at all, but to eternal agony (damnation). In case you hadn’t noticed, we make a huge deal about salvation precisely because we DON’T believe many or most souls are saved.

Now eternal agony is, of course, infinitely worse than simply having your soul snuffed out at death. And since we believe that this eternal agony is the fate of most souls, then of course it becomes of supreme importance compared to the finite agony of those who suffer on earth.

That doesn’t, contrary to rdaneel’s assertion, commonly translate to a ‘so what’ attitude to suffering, since our eternal fate is judged in large part upon how well we provide for the earthly needs of our fellow man (feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the imprisoned etc).

But it does mean that we are conscious of the very strong likelihood of something awaiting us on the other side that is infinitely worse than any amount of earthly suffering. Kind of like someone who suffers the agonies of terminal cancer might be excusably lacking in sympathy for someone complaining about the pain a papercut on their finger.

 

[LilyM]

therefore, either:
A) God does not exist
God wants us to suffer for the sake of suffering

This measn that either God does not exist or God is cruel (and thus not a God I would want to worship if He did exist - fear yes, but not worship).

Third option - God wants us to suffer, not for the sake of suffering, but because the suffering serves a good and worthwhile purpose.

Did my parents want me to suffer as a child? Clearly they did, or they wouldn’t have dragged me to the doctors for all those painful tests and vaccinations, wouldn’t have forced me to sit through hours of school for 13 years, wouldn’t have made me brush my teeth which I found painfully tedious.

Could they have avoided that suffering? Well, yes, in that they could have kept me out of the doctors’ and dentists’ offices, kept me out of school and let me never brush my teeth.

The fact that this suffering was avoidable doesn’t mean that they were cruel or horrible, though, because they knew that these things all served a purpose and all had benefits, and THAT, not mere senseless cruelty, is why they did these things.

You’ll say ‘oh, but God could achieve the purpose without the accompanying suffering’. But here’s a newsflash - God COULD have done lots of things that He CHOSE not to do. And vice versa. He COULD have created us as asexual beings, for example, neither male nor female and reproducing without the joys and pains of the dating and mating process.

He COULD have not bothered sending Christ to save us after Adam and Eve sinned and left us all damned.

He COULD have just not bothered with creating us in the first place.

God makes choices. He’s allowed to, it’s His universe. Not ours, so our choices are much more limited.

 

[sinnerdexter]

You are confusing the subjective will to do what one imagines or fantasies to be good, with “moral truth”. There is no such thing as moral truth if there is no God. It is irrational to say that people ought to behave in a certain way. You can ask people to cooperate with your desires; but this does not tell us what is truly right and what is truly wrong; for there is no right or wrong with out God.

Why not?

I can define what is right and wrong in mathematics because we have a set of agreed-upon rules and axioms that can be used to prove or disprove a conclusion. Similarly, I could construct a set of morals that could be used to prove or disprove that a given action is morally good.

You are arguing that because God’s rules are promulgated by God, they are absolute. Why do we need absolute rules when man-made ones, like mathematical systems, do just fine?

I suppose the ultimate question is how one ought to behave, and one could choose to disagree with the basis of rules for what is right and wrong, meaning everyone does the “wrong” thing. God can’t be wrong, so you can’t disagree with His rules. But I’d argue that, as a species, we agree on many of the basic rules of right and wrong because of evolution. See *The Science of Good and Evil *by Shermer.

 

[sinnerdexter]

That would indeed be a pity. The better Christian motivation is out of love for God and neighbor, rather than fear of punishment. A greater pity would be if someone decided that in the absence of a truly objective grounds for morality, anything is permissible. You are fooling yourself if you think that no atheists have come to that conclusion.

Well certainly plenty of theists have come to the conclusion that everything is permissible. Mostly a type of Christians, I think. After all, all that is needed to forgive every sin is to accept Jesus’ sacrifice, right? It really didn’t take people very long to figure that out!

“Everything is permissible for me” – Apostle Paul

The thing I’ve never understood with proposed atheistic moral grounds is: why exactly should I feel beholden to a conscience that is either the product of social trends or of evolution? Consider - evolution has given me a particular instinct for catching myself when I fall. That instinct is to land on my hands/arms. Better than landing on my head, for sure - but very suboptimal when compared to proper breakfall techniques. So, if I want to improve my fall safety, I need to learn to ignore my instincts and develop new ones.

Why shouldn’t I regard my instinctive moral compass in the exact same way? A suboptimal vestige of a no-longer-relevant past environment, to be ignored at my discretion?

And who is suggesting we simply go with our instincts? In our modern society that would be a recipe for disaster! No, we reason out the best moral codes for our time, rather than rely on instinctive or traditional morals. And the most important morals which we can enforce, we codify into laws.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

God has, according to the bible, been able to give people direct knowledge of things. So He could give us directly the knowledge of the lessons lernt from suffering without anyone having to suffer. Thus suffering as a leraning tool, or for any other use (other than to cause suffering) is not logical (as there are was to achieve the exact same effect without the need for suffering at all).

I never said it’s a learning tool. I said it could serve a purpose we don’t understand.

Giving someone this knowledge does not violate freewill, so it can not be for this reason either.

Again, I didn’t say anything about knowledge violating freewill.

In shoprt, there is no reason for suffering that makes any logical or rational sense, other than the two I have presented:

1. God does not exist
2. God wants us to suffer (suffering for the sake of suffering)

I am not saying that suffering is evil or good. It doesn’t actually matter to my argument if it is either. What matters is if suffering is avoidable or not. God has the power to avoid us suffering, so if God is truly omnipotent (even in the way you describe) and loves us, then He would eliminate avoidable suffering, which as God Created suffering, and I have shown that there are ways to avoid (some if not all) suffering then why does God still allow this avoidable suffering?

Of course it matters. If suffering is in fact good, then suffering can’t very well prove that God is evil. So again, either prove that suffering is evil, or admit that you can’t.

So you object to somone pointing our flaws in your belief system…

No, I’m happy to discuss perceived flaws in my belief system. My point was that in tearing down Christianity because of suffering, you are attacking a religion which allows suffering to have a value, which strikes me as counterproductive.

The reason the bible requiers suffering is for redemption, but this suffering is necesary for God to forgive us. I can forgive people without them needing to suffer, does this make me a better “person” than God? If God can’t forgive without somone having to suffer for it, then I truely am greater than God because I can do something that He can’t (forgive wihtout having anyone suffer for it).

This is what you are really trying to argue: God is incapable of fogiveness without causing someone to suffer for it.

That is not at all what I’m trying to argue. Redemption and forgiveness are different things.

As it is possible (and therefore God should have this power even according to your definition of omnipotence), then God shoudl have this power too, or He is not Omnipotent.

First, we have no way of evaluating whether redemption without suffering is possible. It may not be, for reasons that we can’t discern. But even if it’s possible, we have absolutely no way to determine that redemption without suffering is better in any objective way, and therefore your whole argument falls apart.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

Have you heard of the “Many Worlds” interperetation of Quantum Mechanics, this is similar to that (instead of sin though, it is every time an interaction between particles occurs).

God, could then cause these seperate realities to merge again later. Again, using Quaqntum Mechancis and the Many World interperetation of it, these mergers would be like the “Sum over Histories” that are used to calculate quantum behaviours.

This means such “Many Worlds” interperetation of Sin actually makes a mathematical sense and thus comes under what is posible. So, as you siad, God can do anyhting that is posible, and if He can create a Universe, why not more, and why not use that power to eliminate suffering.

Because temporal suffering is not evil, and therefore its existence does not conflict with his benevolence. And because, like I explained and you ignored, this personal-universes thing might just not suit his purposes.

In this, the choices are still respected, just that God uses His power (that the bible says He has) to eliminate suffering. As God can eliminate suffering, then why does He allow it.

So to sum up:

1. God created suffering (or at least our capacity to suffer)
2. Not all suffering is necesary (that is suffering is not needed to teach)
3. With the suffering that does exist, there are way to avoid it that are logically possible (as it is possible to figrive without the need of suffering, therefore redemptive suffering is not necesary)
4. God does not do anything to stop us experiencing this suffering

therefore, either:
A) God does not exist
God wants us to suffer for the sake of suffering

OR God wants us to suffer for some higher purpose which we cannot fully discern.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

Well certainly plenty of theists have come to the conclusion that everything is permissible. Mostly a type of Christians, I think. After all, all that is needed to forgive every sin is to accept Jesus’ sacrifice, right? It really didn’t take people very long to figure that out!

“Everything is permissible for me” – Apostle Paul

Are you seriously suggesting that Paul didn’t hold himself to a strict moral code? That… is a fascinating interpretation of his many epistles exhorting people to hold to a strict moral code. But hey, you’ve got one out of context sentence fragment, so you’re probably right.

And who is suggesting we simply go with our instincts? In our modern society that would be a recipe for disaster! No, we reason out the best moral codes for our time, rather than rely on instinctive or traditional morals. And the most important morals which we can enforce, we codify into laws.

Sorry if I misunderstood you. I’m glad we agree that this would be a disaster. I am interested in hearing more about your objective atheistic morality, but I suppose that’s off topic for this thread.

 

[Vico]

…
I like to ask the same question is reverse: “Why does God hold the rapist’s right to rape higher than the girl’s right not to be raped?”. And I have never seen an answer to that question!

I want to interject that the rapist does not have a God given right to rape. We have God given liberty (the power of choice) to act but all acts are not just (lawful). Rape is contrary to God’s law. Yet, we have no God given expectation of being unmolested in this life. So I would rephrase your question to:

“Why does God hold our free will higher than our physical and mental integrity?”.

The revealed truth has shown the Divine Laws that we should obey, from which we have inferred a list of universal human rights. Man does not comprehend God, yet mankind has defined universal human rights.

Baltimore Catechism No. 3 Q. 150. Why did God make you?
A. God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in the next.

 

[sinnerdexter]

Third option - God wants us to suffer, not for the sake of suffering, but because the suffering serves a good and worthwhile purpose.

My argument was that there is suffering that is not necesary. If it serves a good and worthwhile purpose, then it is not the type of suffering I was arguing against.

Did my parents want me to suffer as a child? Clearly they did, or they wouldn’t have dragged me to the doctors for all those painful tests and vaccinations, wouldn’t have forced me to sit through hours of school for 13 years, wouldn’t have made me brush my teeth which I found painfully tedious.

No, your parents didn’t want you to suffer, it was due to their lack of omnipitance that they could not prevent you from suffering

Could they have avoided that suffering? Well, yes, in that they could have kept me out of the doctors’ and dentists’ offices, kept me out of school and let me never brush my teeth.

No.

If they had the power to make your teeth perfect and not rot, then they would have kept you out of the dentist because it would be unnecesary. If they had the power to prevent you from getting sick, then you would never have had to go to the doctors.

It is because your parents are finite, limited beings that they have to use what power they have (the power of the doctors and dentists) to prevent greater suffering from occuring to you.

As God created sickness, and could prevent our teeth from decaying (by not creating the bacteria that cause tooth decay - or creating a material that does not decay and having our teeth made from that), then He could have prevented this kind of suffering if He wnated to.

The fact that this suffering was avoidable doesn’t mean that they were cruel or horrible, though, because they knew that these things all served a purpose and all had benefits, and THAT, not mere senseless cruelty, is why they did these things.

CAUSING unecesary suffering is cruel. Causing necesary suffering is not cruel (but not good either).

If God exists, then He created these things, and thus created the suffering that goes with them. He also created our ability to suffer, so not only did He create the things that can cause us to suffer, He could have created us without the ability to suffer in the first place.

Thus, God is the CAUSE of our suffering, and as He could have done it otherwise, this suffering is unecesary. As causing unceseary suffering is cruel, then God is cruel.

You’ll say ‘oh, but God could achieve the purpose without the accompanying suffering’. But here’s a newsflash - God COULD have done lots of things that He CHOSE not to do. And vice versa. He COULD have created us as asexual beings, for example, neither male nor female and reproducing without the joys and pains of the dating and mating process.

Yes, choosing to cause suffering, when there was a viable alternative to do so without causing suffering is curel.

Remember I am talking aobut unnecesary suffering, not necesary suffering. As you are sayning that God could ahve chosen not to cuase us suffering and yet achieve the same goals, then this suffering is cruel. As God this the cause of this unnecesary suffering, and could stop it any any time, then God is cruel.

He COULD have not bothered sending Christ to save us after Adam and Eve sinned and left us all damned.

He COULD have just not bothered with creating us in the first place.

God makes choices. He’s allowed to, it’s His universe. Not ours, so our choices are much more limited.

Yes, and if those choices are cruel, then God is cruel.

Also, about Adam and Even, God knew that the serpent was lieing to them and He could have stepped in at any point and told Adam and Eve that the serpent was doing this. Adam and Even would still have been free to eat the fruit of the tree and commit sin, but God CHOSE to allow them to act with imperfect information (which is a way of removing free will) and so they sinned (the inevitable result of being lied to). Not only that, the serpent was only made to “crawl on his belly”, where as Adam and Eve were cast out of eden and made to suffer, but even more so, the decendents of Adam and Eve, who never had the choice to comit that sin were then also made to suffer the same punishment as Adam and Eve.

Punishing those that are not guilty of a crime is wrong and unethical. Haivng that punishment as unnecesary suffering is also crule. So God now is immoral and cruel. Your arguments are just getting you in deeper and deeper here. They are not actually addressing the issue (that unnecesary suffering is cruel and one who causes that unncessary suffering is also cruel) and not only that, they are just providing more evidence that God really is cruel (ie: You are saying that God is the one that makes the decision to cause uncesesary suffering and that He could have chosen otherwise).

 

[R_Daneel]

I want to interject that the rapist does not have a God given right to rape.

The problem is that the consequences of an “explicit right” and an “implicit allow” are the same. For the victim it does not matter if the rape was explicitly or implicitly allowed.

We have God given liberty (the power of choice) to act but all acts are not just (lawful). Rape is contrary to God’s law.

An unenforced law is worthless.

Yet, we have no God given expectation of being unmolested in this life.

Which is exactly the problem. Why not? Think about it this way: in an allowed rape the freedom of the victim is curtailed. In a prevented rape the freedom of the attacker is curtailed. Since God could interfere, but does not, it seems like that God “values” the freedom of the attacker higher than the freedom of the victim. There is an ancient Chinese proverb: “do not tie your shoelaces on your neighbor’s melon field”. It is a wise proverb; appearances matter. And looking at the innumerable cases of atrocities, which could be prevented (and are not prevented) the conclusion is obvious: God values atrocities against victims. To argue against that based upon some nebulous “free will” is nonsense. Someone’s freedom will be curtailed. Why does God always take the attacker’s side?

So I would rephrase your question to:

“Why does God hold our free will higher than our physical and mental integrity?”.

No, this does not work. Someone’s free will is curtailed in the rape case. Why should it always be the victim’s freedom?

The revealed truth has shown the Divine Laws that we should obey, from which we have inferred a list of universal human rights. Man does not comprehend God, yet mankind has defined universal human rights.

Baltimore Catechism No. 3 Q. 150. Why did God make you?
A. God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in the next.

First of all, a quote from the Cathecism is not an acceptable explanation for an atheist. And second, even if it would be, this is not an explanation. It has nothing to do with the question.

 

[Vico]

The problem is that the consequences of an “explicit right” and an “implicit allow” are the same. For the victim it does not matter if the rape was explicitly or implicitly allowed.

An unenforced law is worthless.

Which is exactly the problem. Why not? Think about it this way: in an allowed rape the freedom of the victim is curtailed. In a prevented rape the freedom of the attacker is curtailed. Since God could interfere, but does not, it seems like that God “values” the freedom of the attacker higher than the freedom of the victim. There is an ancient Chinese proverb: “do not tie your shoelaces on your neighbor’s melon field”. It is a wise proverb; appearances matter. And looking at the innumerable cases of atrocities, which could be prevented (and are not prevented) the conclusion is obvious: God values atrocities against victims. To argue against that based upon some nebulous “free will” is nonsense. Someone’s freedom will be curtailed. Why does God always take the attacker’s side?

No, this does not work. Someone’s free will is curtailed in the rape case. Why should it always be the victim’s freedom?

First of all, a quote from the Cathecism is not an acceptable explanation for an atheist. And second, even if it would be, this is not an explanation. It has nothing to do with the question.

The fundamental problem in discussing this is that we do not have a commonly agreed upon definition of free will. Without that there will be no understanding between us.

 

[R_Daneel]

The fundamental problem in discussing this is that we do not have a commonly agreed upon definition of free will. Without that there will be no understanding between us.

That is easy. Free will has two aspects: 1) the locus of control is with the agent and 2) the principle of alternate possibilities. In simple form, it is the agent who makes the decision, without external force and the agent could act “otherwise”, which means that the agent has at least two options to choose from. I hope you will not say that the victim’s free will is untouched, since she has two “options” 1) resisting (in vain) or 2) “laying back and enjoying the act”. Sounds incredible, but I heard that before. Obviously, the rules of conduct prevented me from answering as I wanted to.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

No, there is something more objective than personal subjectivity and less mythological than God in which to ground morality, and that is in society and our social love of humanity, which together provide the foundation for the same ethics that religion attempts to establish pictorially rather than conceptually, by positing a dogmatic mythology.

It would be a real pity if the only reason we had for being good to each other were our mutual belief in a mythologial being who told us to do this and who would punish us later if we didn’t! In that case, our belief would lack all moral significance, and would express only our recognition of the utilitarian benefit of avoiding punishment.

Why do people call themselves Catholic and then proceed to loudly proclaim their disbelief in God, the Magisterium, and other Church teachings—and try to convince others of the same thing?

Unless I am reading you wrong, I am baffled.

 

[R_Daneel]

Why do people call themselves Catholic and then proceed to loudly proclaim their disbelief in God, the Magisterium, and other Church teachings—and try to convince others of the same thing?

Unless I am reading you wrong, I am baffled.

I am sure sinnerdexter will answer, but maybe I can speculate. I heard the expression: “once a Catholic, always a Catholic”. And he posted before that he was baptized Catholic.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

I am sure sinnerdexter will answer, but maybe I can speculate. I heard the expression: “once a Catholic, always a Catholic”. And he posted before that he was baptized Catholic.

That is perfectly correct, although it does seem like maybe “lapsed Catholic” would be a more truthful description of his religion.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

I am sure sinnerdexter will answer, but maybe I can speculate. I heard the expression: “once a Catholic, always a Catholic”. And he posted before that he was baptized Catholic.

Still doesn’t explain it to me.

 

[sinnerdexter]

Are you seriously suggesting that Paul didn’t hold himself to a strict moral code? That… is a fascinating interpretation of his many epistles exhorting people to hold to a strict moral code. But hey, you’ve got one out of context sentence fragment, so you’re probably right.

Well, there’s two ways to interpret what he said. One is that Paul is under grace and not under the law. He can do anything and not go to hell for it. But even without punishment doesn’t mean it is a good thing to do, much as just because I’m allowed to doesn’t mean I should drink myself silly.

Another interpretation is, especially since the phrase is in quotes even inside the Bible, is that Paul is quoting theists in Corinth who have come to the conclusion that they can do anything and not get punished for it. And he is reminding them that just because they can doesn’t mean they should. I’m pretty sure this is the correct interpretation.

How do you interpret it then? (it’s in 1 Corinthians 6:12 and 10:23)

Sorry if I misunderstood you. I’m glad we agree that this would be a disaster. I am interested in hearing more about your objective atheistic morality, but I suppose that’s off topic for this thread.

My morality is objective, but my values are not. Anyone who knows my values can deduce my morality, and convince me to change my mind through reasoning if they think of better ways to maximize my values than I do. This is true of not just me, but for everyone, theist or no. Everyone subjectively chooses their own values, and anyone who knows those values can objectively deduce that person’s morality.

There is, however, no way to objectively choose values, although some people pretend theirs are.