If there's no God, nothing is right or wrong

[Paleophyte]

I think they're wrong about that.  I don't think that honor killing actually repairs honor.   I think that even if you believe in that sort of shit honor killings don't make sense.  But i do recognize that as a behavior, as a phenomena, it's aiming at the same thing I am.  So there's no dispute over principle, there's a dispute over particular and specific facts.  I think I have a better command of those specific facts...and so, a better command of the moral nature of that behavior.  Is that weird?

I know that honor killers are trying to do a good thing...I just don't think that they are.  Am I wrong?

They think that doing what is right for their faith outweighs the murder. You can always justify it if you try hard enough.

[Paleophyte]

-and People™ may be wrong.  Maybe they aren't just opinions.  Maybe some of them are true opinions.  It really doesn't matter whether or not there are gods.  If there are gods...then maybe they're just opinions.  If there are no gods, maybe some of them are true opinions.  This isn't really a meta ethical dispute as far as I can tell.

All this talk of universal laws.....and if we mean by that..like..is there some law like gravity, which makes it impossible for me to jump to the moon....that prevents people from murdering.  Well, no..no matter what else may be true or false, no.  I cant jump to the moon but nothing about the universe prevents someone from murdering someone else.  Weird oversight for a morally created universe, but there it is.  It's a fact, maybe a bad fact - again, created universe.  But if we mean by a universal law that no matter how you contextualize it, murdering a bunch of people always entails some specific set of harms in fact...well...that just seems true.  I could be wrong, but I'd love to hear how...again, in fact.  How could it possibly be true that serial killing is not bad?  Is that not exactly the sort of shit we're talking about when we talk about bad?  When we talk about evil?

We already have an example of killing that is morally acceptable in honor killing within the Muslim faith. It's not a huge stretch to go from one honor killing to a series of them. While most of human society finds this practice abhorrent and immoral, calling it murder, it remains moral within a certain narrow world view.

Honour killing, murder, war, execution... It's all one human killing another for no good reason. We justify it with [reasons], but it's all killing at the end of the day. And it's never wrong to the murder. If they thought it was wrong, then they wouldn't do it.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Example: When lions take over a pride, they kill the existing offspring so the lion can foster their own lineage. Have they done anything wrong? Is there a universal law against it? No. The lion just served his own interest.

Wait, are we now applying human morality to non-human animals? 

Does this rule apply when we kill other animals for food ?

[The Architect Of Fate]

Whether truth or not, the problem is that under atheism, those ideas are just opinions.

Yes, they're just opinions. This is what people keep telling you.

I wouldn't be able to hold anyone to that opinion, especially the murderer.

This is why we have law enforcement. They're literally the muscle that backs up the moral code. When people decide that they no longer want to follow any sort of social contract, it comes down to might makes right.

To him, my opinion doesn't apply since there's no universal law against murder.

Yes...? What part of serial killers not giving a sailing damn about morality or the law do you not understand?

Example: When lions take over a pride, they kill the existing offspring so the lion can foster their own lineage. Have they done anything wrong? Is there a universal law against it? No. The lion just served his own interest.

And how would that be any different than the war that the USA is currently engaged in with Iran? Aside from the obvious differences in armament? Murder for self-interest with no regard for the law is a pretty good description of that.

It funny since when do we seek consent from murderers ?

[emjay]

Yes, they're just opinions. This is what people keep telling you.

-and People™ may be wrong.  Maybe they aren't just opinions.  Maybe some of them are true opinions.  It really doesn't matter whether or not there are gods.  If there are gods...then maybe they're just opinions.  If there are no gods, maybe some of them are true opinions.  This isn't really a meta ethical dispute as far as I can tell.

All this talk of universal laws.....and if we mean by that..like..is there some law like gravity, which makes it impossible for me to jump to the moon....that prevents people from murdering.  Well, no..no matter what else may be true or false, no.  I cant jump to the moon but nothing about the universe prevents someone from murdering someone else.  Weird oversight for a morally created universe, but there it is.  It's a fact, maybe a bad fact - again, created universe.  But if we mean by a universal law that no matter how you contextualize it, murdering a bunch of people always entails some specific set of harms in fact...well...that just seems true.  I could be wrong, but I'd love to hear how...again, in fact.  How could it possibly be true that serial killing is not bad?  Is that not exactly the sort of shit we're talking about when we talk about bad?  When we talk about evil?

With you saying the OP is a moral realist, like you, and I don't know if that relates to this but... have I got things the wrong way round? Have I got the chicken and egg the wrong way round, so to speak, in that do you believe he or people like he, are treating the 'words of god(s)' as secondary validation of existing 'moral opinions' rather than the other way round... having those 'opinions' dictated as it were, to them by whatever 'words of god(s)' are currently, but changeably, in vogue for them? Is that what all this is about? Ie, in your opinion, is he saying that the only way his existing (rather than dictated) opinions could be objective/absolute is if god(s) existed? If so, my opinion remains pretty much the same as before on that, that in a world of beings, plural (actual or potential), no single being, however powerful, can be considered the source of absolute/'objective' moral truths. Does that make sense?

[The Architect Of Fate]

If he’s ignoring idiots, then the only person he can ignore is himself.

He just ask AI what he should think about it; maybe it’ll give him a wall of gibberish that he can blindly accept despite it being wrong.

[Sheldon]

Okay, but I didn't ask you whether or not you agreed murder was wrong.  I asked you why...whether or not you believed murder was wrong in fact, and from a specific set of facts.  You might believe that murder is wrong for you, you might believe that murder is wrong for society.  The whys matter to understanding where each of us is coming from.  To understanding each others position and what (if any) disagreement we are in.

I think that there are facts -about murder-...not about me, not about society, not about the laws of the land....that identify murder as immoral.  Would you agree that this is the case and that this particular category of facts is what were trying to talk about when we talk about things being (or not being) objectively immoral?

1) From a personal perspective, I believe murder is wrong because it robs someone of their chance to experience life, plus hurts those close to the victim.
2) Whether truth or not, the problem is that under atheism, those ideas are just opinions.
3) I wouldn't be able to hold anyone to that opinion, especially the murderer.
4) To him, my opinion doesn't apply since there's no universal law against murder.
5) Example: When lions take over a pride, they kill the existing offspring so the lion can foster their own lineage. Have they done anything wrong? Is there a universal law against it? No. The lion just served his own interest.

1) So it's subjective that it is wrong, only the second part is objectively true, so now you will need to demonstrate that robbing someone of their chance to experience life, and hurting those close to the victim is objectively wrong / immoral, all I need do is ask why each time you make a moral assertion, and we eventually get to a subjective opinion. 
2) Exactly as they are under theism, since no one can objectively demonstrate a deity exists, or that it has offered any moral assertions, and even if they could, as TGNudger explained, we have no evidence / reason to accept that a deity's opinion is any less subjective than a humans. 
3) Nonsense, we do it all the time, they're called laws.
4) Just how I feel about moral claims assigned to a deity, and even if that deity existed, it's opinion could not take away my moral autonomy, without making me a moral automaton. As I already explained, even "good" Nazis managed to blindly follow rules, but then they were Christians, so already had a lifetime of being indoctrinated to believe blind obedience to rules is a good thing. 
5) This is progress, so you recognise diminished understanding means diminished choice, and this means  diminished moral culpability, ipso facto: a deity with limitless choice must be more culpable for its actions than evolved apes.

[Sheldon]

-and People™ may be wrong.  Maybe they aren't just opinions.  Maybe some of them are true opinions.  It really doesn't matter whether or not there are gods.  If there are gods...then maybe they're just opinions.  If there are no gods, maybe some of them are true opinions.  This isn't really a meta ethical dispute as far as I can tell.

All this talk of universal laws.....and if we mean by that..like..is there some law like gravity, which makes it impossible for me to jump to the moon....that prevents people from murdering.  Well, no..no matter what else may be true or false, no.  I cant jump to the moon but nothing about the universe prevents someone from murdering someone else.  Weird oversight for a morally created universe, but there it is.  It's a fact, maybe a bad fact - again, created universe.  But if we mean by a universal law that no matter how you contextualize it, murdering a bunch of people always entails some specific set of harms in fact...well...that just seems true.  I could be wrong, but I'd love to hear how...again, in fact.  How could it possibly be true that serial killing is not bad?  Is that not exactly the sort of shit we're talking about when we talk about bad?  When we talk about evil?

We already have an example of killing that is morally acceptable in honor killing within the Muslim faith. It's not a huge stretch to go from one honor killing to a series of them. While most of human society finds this practice abhorrent and immoral, calling it murder, it remains moral within a certain narrow world view.

Almost as if theistic moral assertions are not just subjective, but relative as well. See the SS that perpetrated the Holocaust were Christians, the Southern plantation owners who owned slaves were Christians, ISIS are theists, so were the 9/11 terrorist, now Stalin and Pol Pot were atheists, yet they were all content to commit indiscriminate murder, just like the deity depicted in the bible. Go figure?

Now one thing is obvious, no universal objective law stopped them, and their actions are at least as likely to be condemned as immoral by atheists as they are by theists.

[The Architect Of Fate]

We already have an example of killing that is morally acceptable in honor killing within the Muslim faith. It's not a huge stretch to go from one honor killing to a series of them. While most of human society finds this practice abhorrent and immoral, calling it murder, it remains moral within a certain narrow world view.

Almost as if theistic moral assertions are not just subjective, but relative as well. See the SS that perpetrated the Holocaust were Christians, the Southern plantation owners who owned slaves were Christians, ISIS are theists, so were the 9/11 terrorist, now Stalin and Pol Pot were atheists, yet they were all content to commit indiscriminate murder, just like the deity depicted in the bible. Go figure?

Now one thing is obvious, no universal objective law stopped them, and their actions are at least as likely to be condemned as immoral by atheists as they are by theists.

Yeah, but Stalin and Pol Pot couldn’t have been motivated by atheism, since it’s impossible to be driven by atheism to commit atrocities. How would someone jump from not accepting theistic claims about God to deciding to murder people? Yes, you could point to anti-theism, but that’s not atheism—at least not universally—as you can’t go from “I don’t accept the existence of gods” to “and therefore kill all theists.”

[Sheldon]

***Looks at the title of the post where OP clearly wrote the word G. O. D. and wonders how stupid he thinks we are.***

Red herring = I don't like your answer

Before I went to bed last night I decided to bow out of this. Op is just too ignorant and too dishonest to deal with. Not gonna waste more time on this overconfident fool

All this long wind up.... I started thinking this is gonna end with a big fizzle, a big disappointment. Seems I was correct

First off, op didn't even even know what atheism is. He said it's the claim that no gods exist. Look it up yourself, I can't be arsed anymore to quote the troll, since he is gonna deny  even if you quote him verbatim ( see: using the word god in his thread title and op).

The biggest disappointment however seems to be that this entire thread seems to be about ops position:
I don't like reality without objective or absolute morals, therefore they exist (therefore my god as giver of morality exists).. He is unable to understand that reality gives no fuck about his preferences.

He is probably too ignorant to know that his argument is, in fact, the old trotted out moral argument.

His red herring tourette also probably only documents his inability of viewing a bigger picture, of having more complex that just the most simple thoughts.

What an utter disappointment.

I understand why you feel this way, but the way I see it, these threads are not just for the edification of the op, so that he is utterly closed minded doesn't negate the thread's utility for others like me who want to learn and understand more about the topic. 

At the very least it's a chance to subject my own views and ideas to critical scrutiny, and that can't be a bad thing.