u/SherbertItchy7340

Theists say that morality can be objectively if it comes from a morally perfect infallible being named god. Because it's a perfect being then that means that it would also be morally perfect, much more perfect than flawed humans. How does that not establish objective morality? I know there is no evidence of such a being it's a hypothetical scenario but if it was true how would that not make morality objective? For clearance I am an atheist

The primary argument from religious people is that will incest be right if the two people use protection. The point of this argument is to imply that some activities are wrong even if there is no harm involved. But I think this is a false analogy.

The main goal of evolution is to ensure the organism survives and reproduces so that the species survives. In order to do so it has created several inbuilt mechanism to protect us, and disgust is one of them. Evolution has built a natural system inside us so that we feel disgust towards stiff which is harmful to us. We feel disgust towards spoiled food because it is a protective mechanism which stop us from ingesting it and getting sick. Same way evolution has built a natural disgust for incest so that genetically diseased children are not born and species does not go extinct as a result. So even though the threat has been neutralized because of the invention of birth control( the primary function of sex is reproduction and 99 percent effective birth control of today was not present for 99.99 percent of human history) the natural disgust mechanism is still present in us. And it is a valid disgust because it developed as a protective mechanism against threat, even if that threat has now been neutralized.

The disgust of homosexuality on the other hand does not have any threat to back it up. Homosexuals can't produce any genetically altered children or any children for that matter. Now believe whatever u want but I just wanted to clarify these two things are very distinct concepts and thus its not a fair analogy.