Most of your post is just rehashing the Euthyphro Dilemma. — Ram

None of my post is. Now prove me wrong.

"No it isn't. The Euthyphro dilemma is "Is the good loved by the gods because it is good, or is it good because it is loved by the gods?". I'm not asking that. I'm asking you what you would do if killing blasphemers is good."

Okay, you got me. It's a slight variation of the Euthyphro Dilemma.

Prove me wrong by actually discussing the topic and refuting the thread's claim rather than going on about a weird version of the Euthyphro Dilemma where it's basically the exact same thing as the Euthyphro Dilemma but you pretend it isn't

It's a slight variation of the Euthyphro Dilemma. — Ram

It has nothing to do with the Euthyphro Dilemma.

What would you do if pre-martial sex is immoral?
What would you do if charity is a moral obligation?
What would you do if watching TV is immoral?
What would you do if killing blasphemers is a moral obligation?

I'm asking you if you will commit to being moral regardless of what the moral facts actually are. It has nothing to do with asking about the relationship between being good and being liked by the gods.

I would happily break the moral rules if I find them distasteful. I wouldn't kill blasphemers even if I had a moral obligation to do so. I would continue to have pre-marital sex even if it's immoral. What about you?

Prove me wrong...

I've provided an example of an objective secular morality. Kant's categorical imperative isn't some "arbitrary" framework. It's arrived at by reason, much like logic and maths.

... by actually discussing the topic

This is rich. You refuse to support your own assertion and insist that it's our responsibility to prove you wrong. If you have no intention of arguing in good faith by actually providing an argument then what is it you're doing here?

Ram, Michael is trying to reason with you but you are evading his discourse. It is obvious that you're afraid to answer his questions, and this is dishonest. It's difficult but thinkers have to go in the direction of refutation, it's one of the ways we grow. He has in fact pulled your card. If you're serious and you honestly think you have a strong position then you shouldn't be trying to evade him.

As per my claim about Objective Morality, what you don't understand is that there is nothing in the universe like your definition of Objective Morality. The way you define Objective Morality ends up excluding it from existence. So, by all means, prove that Object Morality exists as you define the term.

:up:

What do I mean by believe in? I don't know, I'm not a dictionary. I'm not webster.

[ ... ]

As for definition of "believe", I don't know, I don't care. — Ram

Neither do I. Won't waste any more of your time, Ram, or my own.

Whether you're Christian, Taoist, Muslim, Hindu, etc.- all these groups believe in an underlying natural law. The only dispute is over the details but the existence of an inherent natural law is a premise that is common to all of them. — Ram

You're onto something here. If all these groups would simply get together and work out their differences - that would be an amazing event that could change the course of world history.

I suggest that instead of engaging in pointless on-line debates you do something to make this happen. Start a GoFundMe to - I would enthusiastically donate to that worthy cause.