"None of those have definitive answers"

lol really? so you don't think everyone would agree that its better to be healthy as opposed to unhealthy?

"And none of them are moral questions."

i didn't say they were, i used them as examples that some forms of behavior are objectively better than others, isn't that obvious?

"Agreeing on some values does not make for objective morality."

that's not the case... that's about as close as we can get to objective morality - in that we look at what patterns of behavior are most beneficial for individuals and communities across a civilisations and across a large time period and make conclusions based on those observations

that's the same method we use to produce technology and make conclusions on the nature of reality of our world - the scientific method

but i suppose you first first have to acknowledge that objective reality is a thing... which you seem to be denying right now

"the evidence is history

That has nothing to do with what I said"

"Considering out limited knowledge and predictive powers, I fail to see how you can have objective morality, with or without god or religion.  "

so again your point is apparently that there is no such thing as objective reality... if you are going down that road then what's the point having a conversation to begin with

"and that is an inherent flaw in all communication... nothing man creates is perfect, there are always flaws no matter what, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to do things

Absolutely. No wonder they say we have a God shaped hole in our hearts. God or no god is the ultimate question of life, all the rest orbits around it. If the answer is no, there are millions of consequences and paths, if the answer is yes, there are also millions of consequences and paths, but the cornerstone is, absolutely, the question of God´s existence.

Life is game or a play according to Hinduism, and the great showman is God. An enlightened hindu would say that you are "it" or God because you are the universe looking through itself in an Alan Watts sort of way. That can upset people because they always believed that their suffering would lead them something.

I think the "Idea of Evil" or "The Desired God" from The Breserk Manga is a good example of why Idea of God is important to people who believe in him. The theme of causality is a central theme to Berserk and that entity was created by the desire for humans to have a destiny or meaning to their life's and deaths. So it's the Desired God's job to shape events, good or bad, to fulfill that purpose.

Maybe I haven't answered the question or even made any sense, but what I'm trying to do here is give you guys something to think about.

lol really? so you don't think everyone would agree that its better to be healthy as opposed to unhealthy?

You're changing the terms.  Before, you used the terms fit and overweight.  Overweight is not the same thing as unhealthy.  You can be fit and overweight. You can be normal weight and not fit.
  
And, being overweight is definitely advantageous in certain situations.  If I was in a place or time where food was scarce, I would probably want to be overweight. 

that's not the case... that's about as close as we can get to objective morality - in that we look at what patterns of behavior are most beneficial for individuals and communities across a civilisations and across a large time period and make conclusions based on those observations

that's the same method we use to produce technology and make conclusions on the nature of reality of our world - the scientific method

but i suppose you first first have to acknowledge that objective reality is a thing... which you seem to be denying right now

What you described is not objective.  People are going to look at patterns and draw different conclusions.  I agree it's a good way to arrive at a moral system, but it's not objective, and it does not require god.

I don't know when I denied objective reality.  

that its been the primary method man has used and still uses to communicate these values and that's a fact

You didn't say it was the primary method.  You said the best method.  Those are very different claims.  

That's beginning to seem unlikely as 80% of the genome has been identified as being involved in at least one biochemical reaction within at least one human cell-type. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3439153/

Calling it non-coding is a bit misleading (although it's still refered to as non-coding DNA) as it simply means it isn't a protein coding gene. A lot of it has more regulatory roles such as getting transcribed into regulatory RNA. 

Just going by the name they give it.  I know that recently they've been discovering a lot of it has some use, but that's still new research.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the human genome only refers to the protien coding portion of DNA.

"You're changing the terms.  Before, you used the terms fit and overweight.  Overweight is not the same thing as unhealthy.  You can be fit and overweight. You can be normal weight and not fit."

so... yeah... you've contradicted your earlier claim that the notion that some behaviors are different from others is merely opinion... the silly word play here doesn't change my point

"What you described is not objective.  People are going to look at patterns and draw different conclusions.  I agree it's a good way to arrive at a moral system, but it's not objective, and it does not require god."

its the closest thing to objectivity man can achieve so yes for all intents and purposes it is objective, otherwise you might as well claim there's no objective reality and that using the scientific method is a waste of time

with regards to requiring god, i've said many times in this thread that in this context i'm reffering to god as values that trancend the subjective scope of man and we need that because otherwise we have no foundation to work with and everything becomes subjective as you have struggled with in replies to me

if you want to throw it all away and claim that everything is subjective, then you might as well start questioning if you actually even exist... but most people realise that they have to simplify things to some extent and use some basic premises as a foundation such as "i exist" "i can interact with the world" etc etc etc

"I don't know when I denied objective reality."

you said that the notion that some behaviors are better than others for people is just opinion... how is that not denying objective reality?

"You didn't say it was the primary method.  You said the best method.  Those are very different claims.  "

in this context they are one and the same, if you have a differing understanding of history then please share... maybe you'll be able to rewrite the history books

"You argued that god, as a concept, is necessary for objective morality, which can be transmitted through religious stories.  If we can not read the stories and reliably draw the same moral conclusions, then we do not have objective morality. "

that's true but does not mean that its not a system that can and has been used successfully... all successful civilisations that we know of have used this process - Egypt, Mesopothamia, Rome, Greece etc etc etc

as i said before as is the case with all manmade systems it degenerates with time but that does not mean that the core values are incorrect as you yourself have acknowledged above when you agreed that being fit is better than being unfit

so... yeah... you've contradicted your earlier claim that the notion that some behaviors are different from others is merely opinion... the silly word play here doesn't change my point

My insistence that you don't change words is not silly word play.  I don't see how this contradicts anything else I said.  

its the closest thing to objectivity man can achieve so yes for all intents and purposes it is objective, otherwise you might as well claim there's no objective reality and that using the scientific method is a waste of time

"My insistence that you don't change words is not silly word play.  I don't see how this contradicts anything else I said. "

its silly word play and a contradiction because you have conceded that some behaviors are objectively better than others (my mistake it appears you haven't, you just resorted to trying to argue that being unfit can be better than being fit apparently)

"Even if it's the closest we can get to objective, it is nowhere near objective."

so... therefore, you are claiming that objective reality does not exist

if you are dismissing whatever methods we have devised to be as close as possible to objectivity is that not the same as saying that objectivity is not possible?

what about the scientific method? is that nowhere near objective also? ( well it has to be since its the same thing )

"I have no idea what objective reality has to do with this.  We can have objective reality without objective morality."

the methods we use to determine both (repetitive observations over a long period of time) are the same

i'm serously curious with regards to whether you consider our scientific experimentation to be objective and why if you do, that should be interesting

"Best is a subjective term that would require evidence.  It's your claim, the burden of proof is yours."

as i said the proof is history and all of the civilisations that reached the height of prosperity with the aid of moral systems involving the concepts of gods : Egypt, Mesopothamia, Rome, Greece etc etc etc

every single successful civilisation we have known about where mankind flourished had god or gods at its center

those with humanism at their core such as the soviet union resulted only in suffering

"I did not agree with that at all..."

lol i never thought i'd see someone try to argue that being unfit can be better than being fit... its interesting i suppose

so how far are you willing to take this? are you willing to claim that all values are subjective and therefore no state of being is better than another state of being? (or in other words a dismissal of objectivity)

"Ok.  So, you agree that this is not objective morality?"

um... i just explained this... to reiterate, the method of communication for a message can deteriorate while the message itself still retains its value

i'd just like to add as an aside that its quite interesting that some of the same people i see here rallying aggressively against the idea of objective morality will debate about how bad someone(like trump) is for their behaviors in other threads... its a bizarre contradiction but interesting at least

if its all subjective... how can you assess the behavior of other people?

There's people killing each other just because of this so i'd say yes.

PD: The ones that believe in god are too afraid to die and of other things their minds can't explain to accept it doesn't exist.