I actually agree with your sentiment with this guy. He has done more to damage the image of Christianity than most, in my opinion. Guy is a heretic at best.

Yes, obviously religious organizations can be immoral--because sin exists. You're still avoiding my question, why is this so difficult for you? Here, I'll copy/paste it for you again.

If people(you and I) decide what an immoral act is, then it's only a matter of opinion and no opinion on this matter is more or less correct. If I decide that murdering you and your family because of the color of your skin is moral, I'm just as correct as you are when you claim that is in fact immoral. Is that what you're saying? If not, then you have to explain what morality is and how moral judgements could possibly be weighed against one another.

The Bible is a work of fiction

Religion uses outdated black and white often arbitrary morality to solve decisions making. It works because its simple and simple minded can't think so religion becomes attractive option for them. They can outsource all their brain power into it.
Sin is a transgression against moral laws of supposed gods (in reality its people doing all the writing under false pretense)

You asked me how moral judgements could possibly be weighed against one another

Morality is a muddy concept. While generally very broadly I agree that morality is subjective it doesn’t really address the nuance of all decisions. Its is like an on/off switch either right/wrong there is no in-between. Instead what you need is a thermostat. You might think that killing people because of skin color is right but a more accurate/effective way of doing it would be to employ a decision making on what works and what doesn't depending on where you are going or what you are trying to achieve. Its very convenient to blame a race or color of someone's skin it is very lazy thinking and might not be what you actually want. (Inb4 I activate sirlom's trigger word).

In a system of what works and what doesn't actions are judged solely on their functional outcomes not some absolute moral laws. Instead of right and wrong it becomes either functional or dysfunctional.

That's not a solution to subjective morality because functionality is also subjective. If my aim is to rid the world of a certain race which you and your family happen to belong to, by your logic murder is still a moral action because it is functional to my subjective purpose.

So as a moral subjectivist you still have to explain how evil actions can be wrong if they are based on a set of alternate(subjective) morals and supported by an alternate function.

I’ll give you a hint, it doesn’t work. Moral subjectivity is for angsty teens and liars. You have the same basic set of morals that I do. You didn’t invent them, you got them from your society which got them from the work of philosophical geniuses(mostly religious in nature).

That wasn't your premise, you wanted to know how moral judgements could possibly be weighed against one another.
This isn’t a silver bullet or a promise to solve all problems overnight its a different way of thinking. Yes you still have to make value judgements but they will be result based. You will be asking yourself does this bring me closer to my goals or further away.

Religious morals are fixed. God may say anyone darker than mud needs to be put to death or no shrimp allowed. You don't have any choice or thinking in the matter you just blindly do as commanded irrespective what the result is. If you are using what works method then you can course correct. At first you might make mistakes but eventually you will find actions that do work, unless you are a complete baboon then it doesn't matter anyway.

That's how you can know the difference one will eventually work the other will be repeating same mistakes, because it's a closed loop system.

the world can be a chitty place. it can be really awful for some. i found that people deal with it in two ways. some blame the world for being a chitty place while others blame God.

UNRESOLVED
no 'atheist/antitheist has ever admitted to all the obvious fraud done in the name of 'atheism. i think thats telling as to the honesty of anti-theism. constant lying and excuse making.

WHAT SAY YOU ADDONE?
these were the greatest "proofs" of evolution
1. Charles Darwin and the theory of 'evolution- gets a pass because he didnt call it fact
2.haeckels embryo drawings- 1874- early detected fraud- mass reprinted in textbooks as "proof" for 'evolution. 'atheists "the super logic minds" never did chit to challenge this. when do 'atheists actually become "scientific" as opposed to just "agenda" based liars
3rd piltdown man 1912- 'atheists hold themselves on high claiming to be the greatest critical thinkers that ever graced the world- longest running fraud in the history of modern science. the real mystery is how these clowns ever became the face of modern science?
4th nebraska man 1922- a master work of 'atheist imagination figuring out stuff........
5th whale evolution. incomplete fossils are the best kind of fossils. in fact the worse condition a fossil is in the better it proves 'evolution for some reason? as we will see more of this 'atheist magic in later posts
6th junk DNA should of been the end of atheism. but imaginations and delusions are not defeated by things like facts
7. Harlen Bretz- dont bring science we dont like.
8.Australopithecus afarensis aka lucy "missing link" APE fossil with no hands, feet or face. gets reconstructed with human hands, human feet and face of choice. then its called "proof" of evolution.

that the 'atheist community never called any of this abuse of science out is just more proof what a failure the whole of 'atheism is..........

'atheism and their claims of "critical thinking" is just a trash can full of chit

(of all the data i have processed over the past decade there is one exception. i would consider him a true atheist. he had a channel on youtube. sadly i lost my subscription when you tube cancelled me. he would actually point out the fraud ........ and how the other 'atheists would rage. there is a very important reason why i put a apostrophe when i type the word 'atheist)

I am not reading that lmao. Looks like scribbles on the prison wall.

I am generally against using ai to communicate with but in your case I think its mandatory. Try chatgpt or grok to summarize the mess you just made. Good luck

'atheist wont call out obvious lies but have a lot to say about "morality"

In every religion, man climbs to god. In Christianity, God climbs down to man.