(Yesterday at 6:39 pm)AngelThMan Wrote:

(Yesterday at 6:35 pm)Ravenshire Wrote: I explained that in my post. If your reading comprehension so poor that you can't figure it out, that's a 'you' problem.

Evil being force is a nonsensical statement. I've never made any such claim, so not sure what you meant by bringing it up

If you read and understood my post, you would understand why I mentioned it.

(Yesterday at 6:46 pm)Ravenshire Wrote:

(Yesterday at 8:28 am)AngelThMan Wrote: So far no one except one person engaged. The others were all over the place, changing the topic, Gish-galloping and crashing out. Not one was able to show how an OBJECTIVE standard for morality can exist without a deity. Can YOU actually do it without a tu quoque fallacy, answering with a question, whataboutism, red herring, etc.?

There's no objective standard for morality with your gawd. Why do we need to posit one without gawd(s)?

I haven't said anything about morality with a deity. You have offered a tu quoque fallacy. [b]tu quoque fallacy[/b] (Latin for "you, too"). It's fallacious reasoning

(Yesterday at 5:55 pm)AngelThMan Wrote:

(Yesterday at 5:41 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: @AngelThMan


Have you considered the possibility that an ‘objective moral standard’ simply doesn’t exist?

Boru

If God doesn't exist, an objective moral standard simply doesn't exist. That's been my point all along. Do you agree?

Same answer as before.

Boru

(Yesterday at 6:49 pm)Paleophyte Wrote:

(Yesterday at 6:41 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: Even if "based on facts," why is anyone obligated to observe it if they can evade the law?

Nobody is obligated to observe any laws other than the ones of physics. As amply demonstrated by this long list of people who clearly didn't.

So then there's no objective moral values? If people are not obligated, or it's voluntary, then there's no objective moral standard. Meaning, you can follow it or skip it. If you break the law of the land, you will face consequences from the penal system if caught. However, there's no consequence for breaking these so-called objective moral laws based on truth as long as you don't get caught. If you don't get caught, you owe no one an explanation. Therefore, no moral obligations exist.

(Yesterday at 6:55 pm)Ravenshire Wrote:

(Yesterday at 6:39 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: Evil being force is a nonsensical statement. I've never made any such claim, so not sure what you meant by bringing it up

If you read and understood my post, you would understand why I mentioned it.

I read it and didn't understand it

(Yesterday at 7:14 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(Yesterday at 5:55 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: If God doesn't exist, an objective moral standard simply doesn't exist. That's been my point all along. Do you agree?

Same answer as before.

Boru

So no answer. You're a coward 

(Yesterday at 7:02 pm)AngelThMan Wrote:

(Yesterday at 6:46 pm)Ravenshire Wrote: There's no objective standard for morality with your gawd. Why do we need to posit one without gawd(s)?

I haven't said anything about morality with a deity. You have offered a tu quoque fallacy. [b]tu quoque fallacy[/b] (Latin for "you, too"). It's fallacious reasoning

You obviously don't understand logic or logical fallacies. By stating without 'x' you cannot have 'y' you are implying that with 'x' you can have 'y.' I am simply pointing out that there are no objective standards of morality with our without your gawd. Providing (or manufacturing) evidence of something that doesn't exist is usually the purview if the religious, not the irreligious. If you can't be honest in your arguments, which you have not been, you really shouldn't be accusing others of logical fallacies you obviously don't understand and probably wouldn't recognize if you actually saw one.

Since you've gone to such lengths to avoid the "with gawd" side of it, why are you so determined that we show some evidence for objective morality without your gawd, because quite honestly, if you're not trying to claim that gawd gives us that then I can't see why in the ever loving fuck you're devoting so much time and effort to it.

(Yesterday at 7:17 pm)AngelThMan Wrote:

(Yesterday at 6:55 pm)Ravenshire Wrote: If you read and understood my post, you would understand why I mentioned it.

I read it and didn't understand it

Yeah? No shit!

And, not at all surprising.

(Yesterday at 7:18 pm)AngelThMan Wrote:

(Yesterday at 7:14 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Same answer as before.

Boru

So no answer. You're a coward 

Says the guy hiding behind semantics.

(Yesterday at 7:24 pm)Ravenshire Wrote:

(Yesterday at 7:02 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: I haven't said anything about morality with a deity. You have offered a tu quoque fallacy. [b]tu quoque fallacy[/b] (Latin for "you, too"). It's fallacious reasoning

You obviously don't understand logic or logical fallacies. By stating without 'x' you cannot have 'y' you are implying that with 'x' you can have 'y.' I am simply pointing out that there are no objective standards of morality with our without your gawd. Providing (or manufacturing) evidence of something that doesn't exist is usually the purview if the religious, not the irreligious. If you can't be honest in your arguments, which you have not been, you really shouldn't be accusing others of logical fallacies you obviously don't understand and probably wouldn't recognize if you actually saw one.

Since you've gone to such lengths to avoid the "with gawd" side of it, why are you so determined that we show some evidence for objective morality without your gawd, because quite honestly, if you're not trying to claim that gawd gives us that then I can't see why in the ever loving fuck you're devoting so much time and effort to it.

Still a tu quoque fallacy, plus a red herring, since I have made no claims or comments about a deity. Learn some logic