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

[Ravenshire]

The gawd described in the buy-bull is no arbiter of objective morality. Were it real, it would not be a being worthy of respect, let alone adoration or worship. It's atrocities are legion and it's morality is at best, capricious and uneven.

Pointing to your gawd and claiming it's a moral authority is like pointing at a mafia Don and claiming the exact same thing.

Your gawd is not a moral arbiter, but an authoritarian.

[Ravenshire]

I feel very sorry for you if you have to sink to this sort of level of clutching at straws to keep your faith alive. You seem to me to be a somewhat 'black and white' thinker, Asperger's perhaps?, like I consider myself to be. If so, there are other approaches available that deal with the sense of uncertainty and unfairness in life... mainly Buddhism and Stoicism... in terms of 'covering all bases', in a reductionistic sense, they, in my opinion, do a far better job than any belief in an external god could do. They are about learning to accept whatever you face, without any reliance on something external, by mastering your mind alone. Long journey, yes, but in my opinion a far more reliable approach than relying on/trusting anything external like the notion of a god, especially an untrustworthy god, like my view of the god you worship. Where Buddhism is concerned (or anywhere else), I don't believe in its supernatural claims, but that is not required in order to benefit from it... i.e. supernatural beliefs or not, it teaches you how better to deal with uncertainty, loss, suffering etc. So just a suggestion of something you could look into, if it's all about dotting your i's and crossing your t's in a reductionistic sense.

You're a dishonest scumbag.You posed an objection, and I refuted it with arguments. Yet you abandoned the argument to talk about nonsense because you know you can't offer a rebuttal. I gave you a chance thinking you were engaging in good faith, but you're clearly not. We're done. Get lost. I will not respond or read your replies. When I see the names I said I would ignore, I just delete them without reading. Goodbye, idiot.

You're deleting our posts?!? Whatever shall we do?

I repeat: Damn you're dumb.

[emjay]

You're a dishonest scumbag.You posed an objection, and I refuted it with arguments. Yet you abandoned the argument to talk about nonsense because you know you can't offer a rebuttal. I gave you a chance thinking you were engaging in good faith, but you're clearly not. We're done. Get lost. I will not respond or read your replies. When I see the names I said I would ignore, I just delete them without reading. Goodbye, idiot.

You're deleting our posts?!? Whatever shall we do?

I repeat: Damn you're dumb.

I don't think he's dumb necessarily any more, just possibly on the autistic spectrum, i.e. Aspergers or suchlike, and if so, that changes everything for me, in how I will respond to him... or not... in the future.

[The Grand Nudger]

People can be weird and wrong without being on any spectrum.

[Kitan Etos]

And it doesn't get much weirder or more wrong than a theistic delusion.

[The Grand Nudger]

Getting your theistic delusions wrong is a candidate. It’s fine if a person thinks that, for god based reasons, nothing like an objective morality can exist. It’s weirder and wronger to then decide that this is a belief in objective morality, and that only people who share this belief can validly believe in objective morality.

[emjay]

People can be weird and wrong without being on any spectrum.  

Yes, well, I'd have much more compassion for him if he's 'on the spectrum', because that I can relate to (rightly or wrongly), rather than just a complete arsehole for the hell of it. We'll see which it is ... maybe. But rightly or wrongly, that's where I'm leaning.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

You're a dishonest scumbag.You posed an objection, and I refuted it with arguments. Yet you abandoned the argument to talk about nonsense because you know you can't offer a rebuttal. I gave you a chance thinking you were engaging in good faith, but you're clearly not. We're done. Get lost. I will not respond or read your replies. When I see the names I said I would ignore, I just delete them without reading. Goodbye, idiot.

You're deleting our posts?!? Whatever shall we do?

I repeat: Damn you're dumb.

He’s not deleting our posts. That’s exclusively a Staff thingy. A clumsy lie.

Boru

[The Architect Of Fate]

You're a dishonest scumbag.You posed an objection, and I refuted it with arguments. Yet you abandoned the argument to talk about nonsense because you know you can't offer a rebuttal. I gave you a chance thinking you were engaging in good faith, but you're clearly not. We're done. Get lost. I will not respond or read your replies. When I see the names I said I would ignore, I just delete them without reading. Goodbye, idiot.

Fine. Goodbye.

Of course, opposite is the case. You have been nothing but honest. You pose objections. He fails to give any good arguments or arguments at all. You see his own arguments and talk about something actually relevant that rebuts his nonsense. Of the two of you, you are the only one who acted in good faith. Now he's crashing and cowering because you made him look like a fool.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The gawd described in the buy-bull is no arbiter of objective morality. Were it real, it would not be a being worthy of respect, let alone adoration or worship. It's atrocities are legion and it's morality is at best, capricious and uneven.

Pointing to your gawd and claiming it's a moral authority is like pointing at a mafia Don and claiming the exact same thing.

Your gawd is not a moral arbiter, but an authoritarian.

(Bold mine)

That’s a pretty good comparison - Yahweh often makes people an offer they can’t refuse. 😉

Boru