I don’t see how “the well-being of humanity” is subjective. But a larger point is the implications of what you are saying: that one should believe in God not because it’s true, but because it provides a fixed point for you to base a morality on. As I said, it provided one for the Islamic world too, and they got their idea of God from the Abrahamic tradition, so yes, it’s the same God. You could argue that Mohammed lied about God talking to him and therefore everything they believe about God is wrong, but it is still the same God (who apparently has said nothing to them to correct their mistake. Oddly.)
Island Abraham is not the Bibles Abraham. Only a fool would buy a load of poop like that. Islam is not a religion
It’s NOT the same God by any stretch of the imagination
I thought a lot of atheists prided themselves on familiarity with holy books?
Anyone who has read the Bible and the Koran would be able to tell that when the god written of therein speaks, it is not the same entity whatsoever and it is merely “Muhammad” that claims it is.
Actually I’ve always said both. God exists ontologically and God is the only source of objective morality.
The god of Islam says it’s morally necessary to lie. The Christian God forbids lying. Therefore they cannot be the same. There are other examples of mutual exclusivity between them.
Your definition of the well being of humanity is different from anyone else’s definition. So it’s necessarily subjective. Your opinion against theirs.