But the only religion that holds to this story of Abraham, and circumsises is Judaism.

Muslims reject the Torah, or the Old Testament, and Christians are under no obligation to circumcise so this only applies to Jews.

And Americans do it because they are weird for cultural reasons.

That seems somewhat antisemitic, if you ask me. Not all jews are anti-trans.

80 years ago, most people in your country did not have a much more favourable view of black people.

The word “fascist” does not mean “person I do not like”.

Leftists that support rehabilitative justice, oppose the police and prisons, turn into Hitler when someone commits a minor offence against a group they favour. How does that work?

Yeah, I think a spin off would be best.

But the fantastic beasts are rather dissapointing. I feel like Rowling will ruin any film she will write, and I doubt she will let someone else do it, so my hopes aren’t high. The main story is at least decent and interesting enough.

I agree with your last point, but is seems to me that people are enchanted with this setting and would really like to revisit Hogwarts. So I would say I disagree with you on that it is not soon enough.

Conducting that meeting in that place at such a time seems quite inappropriate and disrespectful.

Is it?

I can’t say I have ever liked the films, so maybe they will produce something better.

Could say the same to you.

If morality is subjective, all morality is based on nothing, that is rather the point.

I am not comparing “living according to a manufactured moral code” to the Higgs boson, this is both a misrepresentation of my argument and a category error.

I seem to be perfectly able to do so: objective morality is supernatural, but what makes you think it is reason enough to dismiss it?

We assume some things to exist without proof all the time, and I am not even talking about how we assume the external world exists, but about things like dark matter and the Higgs bosom. Why is an assumption of the existence of a supernatural thing different in terms of credibility from an assumption of the existence of something that exists in nature.

So lynchings are fine, then?

It’s not better, my point is yours doesn’t exist. It is also the exact same moral subjectivism.

I understand that if moral subjectivism is correct, morality is subjective. But you can’t just say that analytically true statement over and over again, and expect it to work as an argument. How can you be sure it is subjective?

Why is the subjectivity of morality the default assumption? It is a claim, is it not?

Lynching is bad, but there are exceptions

If you say lynchings are bad, that means that justice should be delivered by the state. But you seem to think, that it does not matter who does it. It seems like a contradiction.

But you seem pretty certain morality is subjective, which is not only unproven, but goes against our intuitions.

You seem to think I am comparing objective religious morality with subjective secular morality. This is not the case. I am comparing two accounts of morality, according to one of which morality is independent of subjectivity, and is singular, and according to another all moral views held by all people are subjective.

Your morality is based on “doing what is best for society”. But are you capable of constructing a rational deductive argument with sound propositions that proves that this is, indeed, what morality is? If not, in what way is your morality better than religious morality. Both are “preferences”, according to you, that are not based on rationality.

What is it if not an alternative? Morality is either objective or subjective. You believe it is the latter, but how can you be so sure you are correct?

I am simply saying that it is a very unnatural way to think about morality, and this is why my argument works. Some people, I believe, would rather say that God is real than that morality is subjective. You can say the opposite of that, of course, but this is how philosophical arguments work.

I don’t see the problem you are referring to.

I am so sorry. I understand now I was very immoral when I said that lynchings are bad. I now see that due process is pointless, and we should just kill people we believe to be evil willy nilly.

I understand that I follow morality. The question is, what is morality. If you are correct, it is subjective. If you are wrong, it isn’t. I am not sure what you are trying to say.

Such an account of morality is indeed insufficient for some people. But this is the argument: you have to accept moral subjectivism if you reject God.

Because the argument is based on what morality is. And this is a question about what it is.

Yes, of course it does.