tonyenglish7 wrote:You are stumbling over your own opinion.
You asked how we would know if a society is getting more moral if there wasn't a yardstick to measure it against (ie: objective real standard).
tonyenglish7 wrote:How would we know that a society is getting more moral? Based upon what standard?
I simply pointed out that Christianity isn't a good, useful or practical yardstick (ie: Christianity fails as an objective real standard). Granted, it's my opinion, but how am I stumbling?
tonyenglish7 wrote:I do not hold that Christians have all of morality down to a perfectly clear program and that every question is black and white.
Terrific, because it would be foolish to suggest so.
tonyenglish7 wrote:But I do hold that the majority of humans on the planet hold to a majority of the moral standards that are available on a self evident basis.
This is more than good. You, not unlike myself, recognise that there's no god involved or required.
tonyenglish7 wrote:Just because there are some issues that are not clear, doesn't change the discussion at all. All I need is one single moral code that is real and I win the discussion.
And you've gone and lost me again. In your previous paragraph, you stated
tonyenglish7 wrote:that there is either a "sense" of morality, or there is real morality. That is the discussion.
Now, I take that to mean that real morality is rightfully grounded in your Christian God, right? I base this on posts you've made in this thread
tonyenglish7 wrote:Yes, sometimes it seems like morals change in the bible but they do not.
The problem here is that there's no evidence your God is real; which means that, as far as I'm concerned at least, you're grounding your morals in nothing more than thin air. This is where NHB sees danger, because if we all accepted your point of view we'd still be, for example, burning witches at the stake.
I submit that it's you that's stumbling over your opinion.