First of all, my apologies to Jason for getting his name wrong in the previous post.
I do need to clarify two things before I proceed. First, Jason wrote: “I consider the link there and accusation that I support pedophilia to be a hit-and-run, so I'm okay with making a hit-and-run in return.” Unfortunately Jason misunderstood me. I was not accusing him of supporting pedophilia. In fact, I even wrote: “I don’t mean to suggest that the Lousy Canuck, [Jason], supports pedophilia.” But I guess there’s no need for getting upset about it since I also misread him and got his name wrong. I’m not accusing Jason of supporting pedophilia, rather, I’m saying that his rejection of pedophilia does not comport with his atheism, since atheism cannot account for universal and invariant laws.
Second, I’m not a defender of a “god,” or some kind of deity, but rather the one and only true God revealed in creation and the Bible. I am not a supporter of “religion” as it is often understood. (Many atheists like to lump Christians in with Muslims under the category of “religious people” – which is to beg the question.) I believe that Christianity is religion, and anything else that goes by the name of religion is really just idolatry.
Unfortunately for Jason, he has already lost the debate in his first reply. He writes: “...all morality is subjective.” But this claim is self-defeating. If all morality is subjective, then no one is obligated to accept the claim that all morality is subjective, since the claim is not objectively true – it would just be a matter of subjective opinion. But if Jason says that the claim is objectively true, then all morality is not subjective. Do I have a moral obligation to accept the claim that all morality is subjective? If yes, then morality is not subjective. If no, then I reject the claim and instead embrace the claim that morality is objective. Saying that all morality is subjective is analogous to saying there’s no such thing as truth – which is a ridiculous idea since the claim presupposes that it is true.
When we go to apply Jason’s idea of morality to pedophilia, we see the disastrous results, namely, that pedophilia cannot be said to be objectively wrong, since our atheist friend Jason believes that morality is subjective. This is why I said that Jason’s rejection of pedophilia does not comport with his atheism. The atheist in Jason wants to say that morality is subjective, but the part of him in his heart of hearts that knows God wants to say that pedophilia is wrong regardless of human opinion on the matter. Or does Jason actually believe that if most humans supported pedophilia then it would be ok? Really?
The atheistic notion of morality actually provides the very justification for pedophilia that pedophiles want, even if atheists don't intend it. The pedophile can argue that pedophilia is right because it can’t be said to be objectively wrong. Unfortunately this is where atheism takes you.
There are other comments Jason made that I want to deal with but I don’t want this to drag on too long, so just one last thing. If Jason is correct (objectively or subjectively, I’m not sure) that “all morality is subjective,” then someone should ask him if people have an objective moral obligation to embrace atheism. If yes then, well, you see what I mean.