(Yesterday at 4:03 pm)AngelThMan Wrote:

(Yesterday at 3:44 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: You mentioned God in your very first post in this thread, ya numpty.

Didn’t you just tell Nudger not to conflate truth with morality? 

Boru

Truth as it pertains to reality has nothing to do with truth as it pertains to morality

Of course it does. You’re so silly.

Boru

(Yesterday at 4:56 pm)AngelThMan Wrote:

(Yesterday at 4:28 pm)Ravenshire Wrote: Objective moral truths are a fantasy.

So then nothing can be wrong

Once again twisting my words to attempt forcing them into your pathetic little narrative.

I'm wondering why Angel didn't just Google "objective morality." Here is a part of the information:

"Where Objective Morality Comes From
Thinkers and traditions offer different explanations for the foundation of these objective standards:
• Secular or Rational Foundations: Some philosophers argue that moral truths are self-evident through human reason, human nature, or logical principles (such as recognizing that causing severe, unnecessary suffering to a sentient being is objectively bad).
• Religious or Theistic Foundations: Others argue that objective moral values require an external, transcendent lawgiver—such as God—whose nature or commands establish a universal moral law."

Shamans and witchdoctors argue that, but it isn't and literally cannot be true. If the truthmaking property of a moral statement is some fact about the nature or commands of a moral agent - that is meta-ethical subjectivism. At most, a moral super-agent could have utility as a communicator, insomuch as it accurately and reliably related what was objectively true.

(Yesterday at 5:00 pm)AngelThMan Wrote:

(Yesterday at 4:53 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: That's probably not true, but so what if it were?  Again, as we've already discussed, moral disagreement doesn't show that moral realism is false, and moral realism doesn't require moral agreement to be true.  Like gods, whether or not we all have the same opinion is irrelevant to whether or not there is a correct one.  I reject forced birtherism because it is immoral.  It is immoral because it fails to do what it purports to do and succeeds at harm instead.

The moment I see "god" or "gods" I will stop reading. It's a red herring since I haven't mentioned God. I'm doing an internal critique of atheism.

Moral realism? What's that? Sounds like you're trying to have your cake and eat it, too

(Bold mine)

I took it upon myself to do a bit of research - you have mentioned God at least 25 times in this thread (I may have missed a few).

Boru

^In the very first post, as a matter of fact. Not to mention the title of the thread.

(11 hours ago)Ravenshire Wrote:

(Yesterday at 4:56 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: So then nothing can be wrong

Once again twisting my words to attempt forcing them into your pathetic little narrative.

I'm really trying to understand. How is anything wrong if "Objective moral truths are a fantasy??"

(11 hours ago)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(Yesterday at 5:00 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: The moment I see "god" or "gods" I will stop reading. It's a red herring since I haven't mentioned God. I'm doing an internal critique of atheism.

Moral realism? What's that? Sounds like you're trying to have your cake and eat it, too

(Bold mine)

I took it upon myself to do a bit of research - you have mentioned God at least 25 times in this thread (I may have missed a few).

Boru

Only in pointing out red herrings. My OP is an internal critique on atheism. I made no claims about God at all. Please post any claim I made about God and I will apologize

If objective moral truths are a fantasy then things could still be subjectively wrong.

OFC..I don't believe that objective moral truths are a fantasy. I think they're comparatively rare, and difficult, but I don't think there's any truth content difference between my saying that the sun rises in the east and that forced birtherism is immoral, for example. Both statements purport to report a fact, and if they accurately report that fact, then they would be true in the same way that any other such statement would be.

The thread title itself is a claim about gods - namely that in their absence, nothing is right or wrong. That doesn't follow. Not only are there multiple ways that things can be right or wrong with or without gods, things can be objectively right or wrong with or without gods. Do you care about the truth of your statements or the truth of your conclusions? I ask because, as I mentioned a few pages back, there's really not much room to discuss this or any other subject if you don't.

(11 hours ago)AngelThMan Wrote:

(11 hours ago)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: (Bold mine)

I took it upon myself to do a bit of research - you have mentioned God at least 25 times in this thread (I may have missed a few).

Boru

Only in pointing out red herrings. My OP is an internal critique on atheism. I made no claims about God at all. Please post any claim I made about God and I will apologize

Reread that.  You said you had never mentioned God.  When it's pointed out that you have multiple times you switch it up to CLAIMS about God.  

Tell us how you haven't MENTIONED God.