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

[The Architect Of Fate]

You have not convinced me an objective morality can exist for you.

There’s no “for you” in an objective morality.  That’s the whole point.  If objective morality exists then it exists with or without a god.  With or without our assent.  If it doesn’t, then it doesn’t exist for you me gods or house cats.

But he can run away, and no magical sky deity will throw him into a mystical prison, because morality isn’t about what’s factually good or right—it’s about what some inescapable cosmic tyrant can do, like tossing you into a pit of fire for not aligning with its nature or some nonsense like that. Morality isn’t about being a good person; it’s about living in fear of harsh punishment if you do something wrong. Believers in God are like children needing a cosmic parent lol .

[The Grand Nudger]

Cutting through all of this miscommunication…if what you’ve been trying to say this whole time is that a divine command morality can’t -really- exist if there are no gods. I agree.

Not really a problem for atheism, though, huh?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Well, you’re just flat out wrong there.  Thing is…what you’re actually referring to doesn’t need a god either.  Here on earth we call it a kangaroo court.  Where the objective truth of some law or charge is irrelevant, only whether some person or body is powerful enough to kill you for catching the charge.  

You don’t have to steal, fir example, to be executed for theft…and you certainly don’t have to acknowledge the validity of the kangaroo court or want to be executed by them for them to put two in your head, throw you in a dumpster, and send your family a bill for the process.

That all sounds pretty bad to me, both practically and objectively speaking….

Another word salad. No idea what any of that means.

You have not convinced me an objective morality can exist for you.

Simply because you don’t understand something doesn’t qualify it as a word salad. You’re just stupid.

Boru

[AngelThMan]

You have not convinced me an objective morality can exist for you.

There’s no “for you” in an objective morality.  That’s the whole point.  If objective morality exists then it exists with or without a god.  With or without our assent.  If it doesn’t, then it doesn’t exist for you me gods or house cats.

I'll take it to mean you can't come up with an objective standard for morality as an atheist. So I'll move on.

I've heard the argument that even if God exists, his morality would be objective. I think it was Alex O'Connor who first offered it, and since then it's gained a lot of traction. But that's giving God human limitations. In this scenario, God is imperfect and has human flaws, and therefore his morality is just an opinion. The thing is that the God I believe in is perfectly Holy and perfectly moral. He is infinitely moral. He in fact created morality, and is the highest possible expert on the topic. I agree that if God doesn't posses all those qualities, his morality is imperfect and therefore subjective. Only if a perfectly moral God exists can there be a perfect moral ground. And that's the God I believe in, not the lesser God.

[The Architect Of Fate]

1. Nope, the Grand Nudger provided an objective moral standard. You lose, and you’re not moving on—you’re running away.

2. Any claim of a perfectly moral god raises the question of what standard defines their goodness, perfection, or morality, especially if judged by their own criteria. That’s pretty convenient. Plus, creating the universe doesn’t automatically make them moral. There’s no objective morality here, let alone anything perfect—just a lot of circular reasoning and assertions.

Once again, Nudger comes out on top, and you fall short.

[awty]

[Kitan Etos]

Anyone can conceptualize a non-existent being in which to believe. Just leave me out of it.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Anyone can conceptualize a non-existent being in which to believe. Just leave me out of it.

Yup making stuff up is easy

[emjay]

There’s no “for you” in an objective morality.  That’s the whole point.  If objective morality exists then it exists with or without a god.  With or without our assent.  If it doesn’t, then it doesn’t exist for you me gods or house cats.

I'll take it to mean you can't come up with an objective standard for morality as an atheist. So I'll move on.

I've heard the argument that even if God exists, his morality would be objective. I think it was Alex O'Connor who first offered it, and since then it's gained a lot of traction. But that's giving God human limitations. In this scenario, God is imperfect and has human flaws, and therefore his morality is just an opinion. The thing is that the God I believe in is perfectly Holy and perfectly moral. He is infinitely moral. He in fact created morality, and is the highest possible expert on the topic. I agree that if God doesn't posses all those qualities, his morality is imperfect and therefore subjective. Only if a perfectly moral God exists can there be a perfect moral ground. And that's the God I believe in, not the lesser God.

So how do you square this 'perfectly moral' conception of God, with a god that if it exists, needlessly created suffering in animals, other than humans, and a cycle of nature built around that? Do you believe animals suffer?... as in, have consciousness and experience pain?... yet have no part to play in this 'perfect morality' business and have no escape from that cycle of suffering?... how can you call that 'perfectly moral' with a straight face?

[The Architect Of Fate]

Good according to who?
Perfect according to who ?
Moral according to who ? 
If you're going to say "according to God," that doesn't actually answer the question, because the real question is why should you believe that?