When he finally tries to justify objective morality under theism, he avoids discussing it, hides behind excuses, and comes up with various ways to steer clear of that. Though ultimately, that’s just the apologist game he’s playing—crying fallacy and insisting it’s changing the subject when it’s not. And think posting AI drivel is going to save him......

(Yesterday at 9:30 am)Sheldon Wrote:

(Yesterday at 9:10 am)AngelThMan Wrote: I NEVER CLAIMED THAT OBJECTIVE MORALITY STANDARDS EXIST WITH A DEITY. The topic is: Without a deity, an objective moral standard cannot exist.

So you asked how something you don't believe exists can exist, that speaks for itself. then when posters explained they don't believe it exists you lied and said they hadn't. Then when that ran it's course you asked what standard I used to base morality on, then ignored my answer, and then lied repeatedly that I'd not given any.  

I'd bet a months wages you will spin this again soon, in this lying trolltacular display.

Of course, that’s what he’s claiming, as it’s the ultimate goal of his attempt at an apologist gotcha. He just won’t defend it because he can’t.

(Yesterday at 9:14 am)Sheldon Wrote:

(Yesterday at 6:29 am)emjay Wrote: Well, in my case, I don't know where I stand on the question of 'moral realism'... ie 'objective morality' as Nudger talks about it. But what I do know, is that positing a 'being', however powerful it is, does not get around the problem of 'objective morality' in the slightest... blatantly obviously. And IF what he's talking about is classical theology... if that's what you're saying he is... then that no better, IMO, solves the problem, because there's no way to tie that idealised classical theology to the world we actually see. I'll leave it to my betters... like you and Nudger... to argue the case, if you can be arsed arguing with this OP, but I have no interest in doing so beyond this. Personally I lean more towards it being subjective... just the way our brains have evolved... such as the capacity for empathy, and even if that capacity, is not guaranteed to be the same in all people, it still remains to me a much better and more admirable explanation, than people who essentially need a book to tell them what is moral and what is not, masquerading it for nobility, but would change the book's rules they follow, in an instant, if it offered them something better for a cheaper price.

To be clear the thread author has offered nothing beyond a loaded question, I seriously doubt that he is here for, or has any interest in debating the complexity of morality.

We'll see... he does seem to want to talk to Nudger... who's got far more patience for this sort of thing than I have... and despite his qualms about mindfulness, seems to me pretty much the most mindful person I've ever met... in a 'Zen flow-ish' kind of way I wish I could be that mindful Anyway, as it stands, no, I don't have the patience... or knowledge, philosophical or otherwise I admit... at all to talk round and round in circles about this sort of thing forever, especially with trolls, but some people enjoy it, so each to their own. Have fun IOW, but not my cup of tea.

(Yesterday at 4:07 am)AngelThMan Wrote:

(October 16, 2026 at 6:42 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: IDK if that’s true, but assume it is.  Assume he died happy believing he lived his best life.  So what?  How does that change whether or not my opinion that his actions were immoral is true?  My opinion that his actions were immoral is based on the nature of those actions….a fact of the object.  Not his level of deathbed satisfaction.  An (alleged) fact of the subject.  

It is a bad fact, though, isn’t it.  He got away with it.  I would go further than just calling his actions immoral.  I would say that anyone who knew what he was up to and didn’t do anything shared in that immorality.  If you, me, or god knew and didn’t do anything- that would be immoral as well.  I didn’t know.  You didn’t know.  Think the big guy knew?

The point is that your opinion is not binding anywhere in the world.

If my opinion is true then it is true everywhere in the world?  I don't really know what you mean by binding.  We've already discussed how bad people can do bad things regardless of whether or not we or even they see them as bad things.  I assume you believe that there are good and bad things, objectively or subjectively, rightly or wrongly, and that you do at least some bad things. Tell me more about what you think a binding opinion would entail or do.

Quote:under atheism no objective morality can exist.

Untrue.  It may be the case that moral realism is false, but nothing about atheism is wrongmaking for moral realism, and as many other posters have already said, nothing about a god is truthmaking for moral realism. The issue of whether or not there are gods is completely irrelevant to whether or not moral statements can be true in a non-novel way.

(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?

No, I do not agree.

According to Google, "objective" as an adjective means:

"Free from bias: Based strictly on observable facts, evidence, and reality rather than personal emotions, beliefs, or interpretations. (Example: objective evidence or an objective appraisal)"

Simply put, rights are based on facts and wrongs and evils are based on lies.

Since belief in God is just that -- a belief -- it is not an objective standard for anything by this definition.  Without establishing that God is the over-arching Truth, you can't maintain that any objective standards flow from that assumption, although you most certainly can believe it.

I think a confusion arises because morality and ethics can be both objective (based on facts) as well as relative to the interests of particular humans, making them different between groups and individuals.  We have complex laws and courts to discriminate and decide about different cases for this reason, all while we uphold general principles.

Only if there are no facts can there be no objective moral and ethical standards.  I don't know any atheists who claim there are no facts.  Most of the atheists I know uphold the highest standards of accuracy available from science and philosophy.  They leave the belief in God out of their considerations because it is a mere belief.

Of course other atheists do define the issues differently, but then we are only talking about definitions.

(Yesterday at 10:27 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

(Yesterday at 4:07 am)AngelThMan Wrote: The point is that your opinion is not binding anywhere in the world.

If my opinion is true then it is true everywhere in the world?  I don't really know what you mean by binding.  We've already discussed how bad people can do bad things regardless of whether or not we or even they see them as bad things.  I assume you believe that there are good and bad things, objectively or subjectively, rightly or wrongly, and that you do at least some bad things.  Tell me more about what you think a binding opinion would entail or do.

Quote:under atheism no objective morality can exist.

Untrue.  It may be the case that moral realism is false, but nothing about atheism is wrongmaking for moral realism, and as many other posters have already said, nothing about a god is truthmaking for moral realism.  The issue of whether or not there are gods is completely irrelevant to whether or not moral statements can be true in a non-novel way.

"It may be the case that moral realism is false, but nothing about atheism is wrongmaking for moral realism, and as many other posters have already said, nothing about a god is truthmaking for moral realism."

Exactly, moral objectivism is neither dependant on, nor is it mutually exclusive with, an extant deity. 

I lean towards moral subjectivism and relativism myself, but this would likely be true even were someone able to evidence a deity. FWIW I am not saying we can't make objectively true moral claims, but that ultimately these would rest on subjective assertions, and this is of course is just as true of theistic moral claims as well, even if they could evidence a deity existed.

Even if we were to establish that a god exists and the Correct™ morality to follow flows from some set of facts about its existence that would not be an objective moral system. It would be an explicitly subjective one. We would be stating that the truth-making property of a moral statement is a fact about some subject. In that case a god.

I think the confusion from the faith and also from a lot of atheists as a product of cultural conditioning flows from the term subject. A Christianized mind immediately objects to the idea of god as a subject. As in….no…wrong…god is not subject-to anything, god cannot be a moral subject. However that’s not the sense of the term being employed in meta ethics to describe the difference between moral ideations in principle. In practice, a whole different can of worms. A person can be a meta ethical objectivist and a descriptive subjectivist. This is the idea that moral statements can be true or false -and- we constantly get them wrong for reasons of individual or societal facts and biases. Relativity being the subjectivity of large numbers.

The meta bit is an open question with implications for the semantics of the descriptive part (which isn’t). As in…if it’s true that there are no moral facts (in the objective sense) then no one can actually make a false moral statement. All moral utterances, even diametrically opposed moral utterances, are equally true and at the same time for the same reasons. This (seemingly) strange circumstance is another major stumbling block to how people express their meta ethical beliefs logically.

(Yesterday at 9:10 am)AngelThMan Wrote:

(Yesterday at 8:40 am)Deesse23 Wrote: You cant establish that objective standards exist with a deity, remember? Your entire script fails from the start. 
Wrt to teh fallacies you mentioned. I did neither of those. I dont even care if you are too dishonest or too stupid to even know what they mean. You just keep lying. I am not impressed. You are like a bad rash. After some time, you will be gone, either way.

How dumb exactly were you as an Atheist again??

This shows your stupidity and the stupidity of most atheists that have replied to this thread. I NEVER CLAIMED THAT OBJECTIVE MORALITY STANDARDS EXIST WITH A DEITY. The topic is: Without a deity, an objective moral standard cannot exist. That's it. Those are different topics. If you understood philosophy, you would understand that answering that I haven't established morality under a deity is not addressing the topic. It's a red herring fallacy. You are changing the topic, but never even tried to refute my premise. If you don't believe me, ask ai

Unfortunately, you wrote the word "god" with a capital "G" in the thread title and your opening post, referring to your christian god. You didnt say "without a god". You can lie all the time on this forum, but you cant beat your christian habits all the time.

Quote:If there's no God, nothing is objectively right or wrong or evil. Do you agree?

You do think objective morals exist, and you think they come from your god. Your mod is to push as hard as you can to make anyone agree that without a god (small "g") objective morals dont exist*, only to claim your God (capital "G") is the source of objective morals in the next step. How often do you think we have seen this script in the past 15 years? Please stop pretending its about anything else but that.
 
Demonstrate your god exists
and
that objective morals exist
or fuck off

The truth is (in your theist worldview): Objective morals can exist without your god. Ask any Muslim.


* although they dont exist too with your or any other god. Have you finally educated yourself about objective morals? Looks like you didnt.

(Yesterday at 9:19 am)AngelThMan Wrote: I posted exactly what I asked AI. I posted my argument and your reply, sticking only to the topic. You have not posted what you asked ai. You may have posted moments of frustration, which are not the argument. I only posted my argument and your rebuttal on the topic. You likely posted meta stuff to the ai, such as my insults. And yes, you're a moron that knows nothing about logic.

I gave AI
#1 links to all 21 pages of this thread
#2 and asked the open question to "analyse your behaviour"
#3 nothing else

Keep on wiggling, little worm. Hows that your smugness is starting to show cracks, am i getting under your worm-skin? Have we been falling apart and are we crashing out?

The conditional “if” in the question either presupposes or implies that a gods existence is a modifying factor in whether or not an objective morality exists or could be expressed. Thus, it is not a ref herring, or changing the subject, to explore the other side of that conditional and whether or not it actually is a valid modifier.

It isn’t. It doesn’t matter at all. With or without a god objective moral ideation is or is not true.