Atheism, A Grim Position?

[Esquilax]

I'm not ignoring what you say.

That is what you are doing, when I spend several posts explaining that objective and rational grounding for morality can be found, and that this prevents all perspectives from being equal without appealing to some unverified "ultimate" grounding, and your response is just "yeah, but without an ultimate grounding all perspectives are equal!"

When you restate your initial position in response to a post explaining why that initial position is little more than a flawed assertion that does not follow, you have either ignored what is being said, or are intentionally pretending that it wasn't said.

I just find a lot of it is not relevant to the fundamental issues I posed in the thread. It skirts the fundamental issue. I'm trying to cut to the chase. Doesn't seem to me you are addressing the fundamental issues I'm raising.

The trouble is that the fundamental issues that you're raising are little more than fiat assertions about how things work, and that expecting people to play by things you just declare to be true because you want them to be is childish, not to mention not something any of us are bound to do. If you want to make a case for why "ultimate" grounding is required, and then why reality is insufficient "ultimate" grounding yet the subjective opinions of a cosmic wizard qualify, I'm all ears. But all you're doing so far is asserting that all those things are true and then expecting us all to just take you at your word.

For instance, do you think a thoroughgoing anarchist can make a valid, defensible, well reasoned, logically consistent argument that she is perfectly right to do just whatever she wants and it's fine even to completely eliminate constraints on all individuals?

No, I don't, because such a position would be necessarily inconsistent, either in the position actually being espoused, or in the moral framework the claimant is seeking to use as an alternate. Not to mention, such a position would be practically untenable unless the claimant is expecting that it be applied to her alone, and nobody else... upon which time she is merely special pleading, and has failed to qualify for a well reasoned and logically consistent position.

I've said this before, you know. Like, in posts you've responded to.

No matter what society thinks. Or even that "right" and "wrong" are merely illusionary constructs of those who want to formulate morality. If not, why not. My view is that without some ultimately foundational moral base, those arguments can be completely valid.

You spend a lot of time asking everyone else to justify their positions, but when I asked you to justify the necessity of ultimate foundations for morality, you completely ignored me, and that's the whole basis of the argument by which you're disagreeing with the rest of us.