AngelThMan Wrote:The word "ethics" is just another word for morality.

Nope, it isnt.
Shall we add this to the evergrowing list of things you dont know and you want to inform the world of?

No you see, we need threats of eternal hellfire and magical rewards and a bunch of stuff written on stone tablets as said by a sky wizard to say what is right and wrong. Again, this reminds me of a theist I debated who insisted hell was justified because we send people to jail. Then I reminded him evil regimes send people to jail too, so what makes hell right again?

(Yesterday at 3:28 am)AngelThMan Wrote:

(Yesterday at 1:51 am)Deesse23 Wrote: And this is the fun part:

Why would he think I make a tu quoque???? Seems he knows the answer which he does not want to make public, because it would expose the bankruptcy of his divine command theory and how rotten his mind is because of religion.

"Tu quoque refers to hypocrisy or personal history to invalidate an argument."
A whataboutism is a form of tu quoque fallacy. We can also call it a red herring.

But why don't you just answer the original question. If there's no God, nothing is right or wrong. Do you agree? If not, what objective morality exists?

Your question was, do you agree? It's a yes or no question, if that's all you want to know the conversation is already done. Some will answer yes because they believe all morality is subjective and some will answer no because they believe at least some morality is objective. Did you not already know this answer?

(Yesterday at 4:04 am)AngelThMan Wrote:

(Yesterday at 1:46 am)Sheldon Wrote: What objective standard would make anything right or wrong with a deity?

That's changing the topic. Answer my question. If there's no God, what objective standard can we appeal to? The moral argument is undefeated. All you can do is change the topic or offer a tu quoque fallacy or whataboutism

There are entire books of moral philosophy that propose objective standards without appeal to divine authority. Maybe you should read one instead of just declaring victory and kicking the board over.

Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals by Emmanuel Kant

Ethics, Demonstrated in Geometrical Order by Baruch de Spinoza

Morality Without God? by Walter Sinnott-Armstrong

Objective Morality Without God? A Friendly Debate between an Atheist and a Christian by Tom Jump and Rick Mattson

(Yesterday at 5:10 am)AngelThMan Wrote:

(Yesterday at 4:57 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: First, tell me why you think moral values are objective. If you like, you can answer by example - what acts are ALWAYS moral or immoral, that kind of thing.

Boru

That's a really dumb question. Why would moral values or any values be inherently objective? The question is, can they be objective? So you agree under atheism there are no objective moral values?

Whether there are or are not objective moral values, they do or don't exist whether a person is an atheist or a theist. Theism is only an opinion that at least one god is really real. Atheism is not agreeing with that opinion. There are already words for people who think there are objective morals (moral realist) or who don't (moral irrealist) and both atheists and theists can be either.

(Yesterday at 9:07 am)AngelThMan Wrote:

(Yesterday at 8:58 am)Sheldon Wrote:  Jimmy Saville was a Catholic, he received a Papal medal, so he wasn't bound by theistic morals, and what's more, according to your religion he could still have been saved and spend eternity in Heaven. Now it's just my opinion of course, as are all moral claims, but I find that idea morally repugnant.

You really don't understand logic or the argument. This is just foolish. I will give you one last chance to answer the first question. If you can't respond properly, we're done:
Under atheism, is anything right or wrong or evil? If Yes, what standard are you appealing to? After you answer that, I can engage with other topics if you're interested

There's nothing 'under atheism'. Or theism. Atheists include humanists and Maoists. Theists include Christians and Molech worshipers. You're making a category error. Atheists have differing moral philosophies. Theists have differing religions. Neither atheism nor theism are inherently about morality.

I'd hazard many of the atheists here are humanists. Perhaps you'd like to engage with us on that basis?

(Yesterday at 11:52 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(Yesterday at 5:10 am)AngelThMan Wrote: That's a really dumb question. Why would moral values or any values be inherently objective? The question is, can they be objective? So you agree under atheism there are no objective moral values?

Whether there are or are not objective moral values, they do or don't exist whether a person is an atheist or a theist. Theism is only an opinion that at least one god is really real. Atheism is not agreeing with that opinion. There are already words for people who think there are objective morals (moral realist) or who don't (moral irrealist) and both atheists and theists can be either.

What are the odds this guy has ever heard the term Moral Anti-Realism, let alone understands the different branches of thought within it. 

Each time he posts it sounds more and more like he's blindly parroting an apologetics argument he hasn't examined critically and so doesn't fully understand.

(October 15, 2026 at 2:34 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: If there's no God, nothing is objectively right or wrong or evil. Do you agree?

Yes, but the emboldened part is redundant and can be removed.

(Yesterday at 9:56 am)Sheldon Wrote:

(Yesterday at 9:10 am)AngelThMan Wrote: Atheists are so dumb. No one is saying theists can't be rapists. I'm saying if there is no God, Jimmy Saville did nothing wrong objectively. Let's hear another silly response.

If you want an example of dumb ideas, then it has to be the idea that Jimmy Saville can be saved by an act of contrition, and spend eternity in heaven, whilst simultaneously claiming that what he did is objectively immoral. Now that not just a spectacularly stupid idea, it is in my opinion morally repugnant. 

While decent people who never harm anyone and wouldn't want to, are damned to an eternity of torment, for not believing something no one can demonstrate a shred of objective evidence to support. 

And of course the comedy gold of you calling atheists dumb.

You ARE being dumb. When did I say Saville is or can be saved?? You are changing the topic, which is called a red herring fallacy, which IS dumb. You still haven't established what Saville did wrong under an atheistic world, other than offer your feelings and opinion about the situation. Your opinion is not a law of the universe, and no one is required to obey it.

(October 15, 2026 at 2:34 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: If there's no God, nothing is objectively right or wrong or evil. Do you agree?

If there's a God, nothing is objectively right or wrong or evil. 

Do you agree?

Time for some reciprocity on your part, and I'll save some time, behind door number 2 = 

I suspect you don't agree, so evidence why.