You're right. I was thinking about "positive" in terms of the person making the assertion, not the nature of the assertion, itself (is vs. is not). You made a negative assertion/claim, but in terms of what I'm getting at, you were the one who made the claim that God does not exist, and this is what you should not have done if you didn't want to prove your claim.

The initial burden of proof always lies with the person who makes the claim. When you make a claim that God does not exist, you need to be able to prove that, or change your claim.

quote:
Overwhelming majority of historians, scientists, ethicists, philosophers, psychologists, and such.

Can you support your claim that an "overwhelming majority" exists whose field of expertise has bearing on the truthfulness of the subjectivity of morality?

Many people in many fields may believe that morality is subjective, but they have to provide reasoning for it. I don't think historians, scientists, psychologists, "and such" can adequately address this issue

quote:
It might seem like it to you, based on your distorted reality, but it is closer to 50:50. There is no consensus. Do you, like, watch or read news at all?

I said "it seems that the cultural consensus is that abortion is the acceptable (i.e., moral) thing at this time", and for the most part, that is absolutely true. Only a small portion of people in this country agree that abortion should be banned in all circumstances (my position). That means the vast majority of people support abortion in at least some circumstances, which means that the cultural morality has deemed abortion as acceptable, as I said. There may be no consensus on all aspects of the issue, but very few people in this country actually believe that it's immoral to have an abortion for any reason.

But you've missed my point, as usual; you keep focusing on the trees and not the forest. My point is that if morality is entirely subjective and based on cultural norms, then logically speaking, to go against society is to be immoral on a definitional level. If society believes that abortion is acceptable in at least some circumstances and creates laws to reflect that thinking, then to believe that abortion is not acceptable in all circumstances is to be "immoral" and dare I say, "evil", from a societal standpoint.

A cultural basis for subjective morality makes the abolitionists evil in their time period, the suffragettes evil in theirs, and the pro-lifers who reject abortion in totality evil in ours. It is definitionally immoral to oppose what is acceptable in your current society in that view, and that was my point which you haven't addressed.

quote:
The closest thing to an authority is the government, who does attempt to legislate morality based on the cultural norms of society.

Again you missed the point. I'm talking about standards, not law enforcement. If societal desire is one standard of authority for judging morality and the golden rule is the other standard for judging morality, then which standard wins out when the two are in conflict?