>>22941723atheism, rooted in materialism, can't ground objective morality.
if moral oughts come from gut instincts, as you claim, they're subjective. helping or harming an old lady becomes equally valid.
without a transcendent standard, your morality collapses into preference.
how do you justify moral absolutes without God?
instincts vary by person and culture, what makes yours binding?
you call theistic morality an appeal to "Yahweh said so," but that's wrong. God's nature, not arbitrary decrees ground the truth value of moral claims.
theistic morality claims goodness flows from God's eternal perfect essence, not a human-like authority.
you cite specific acts in (and not in) the biblical narrative as being evil, but by what standard can you judge them evil?
if it's your gut, you're begging the question.
your "aryan gut instinct" swaps one authority for another. why is it objectively right? it's also exclusionist, unlike the universal scope of theistic morality. you tie theism to jewish conspiracies, but my point was philosophical.
atheism lacks a basis for objective moral duties, you're borrowing from the Christian worldview to even argue morality, then denying the foundation.