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

[Fake Messiah]

All you can do is change the topic or offer a tu quoque fallacy or whataboutism

For someone who keeps complaining about others using logical fallacies, you sure like to use them yourself. This whole topic is a logical fallacy, like when you said: "What objective standard would make anything right or wrong without God?" The logical fallacy you are using here is the Loaded Question You are already assuming that objective morality exists, and you are already assuming that God is the only foundation for (objective) morality—none of which you proved, and therefore none of which is true.

This is why people are asking you questions because you haven't proved what you claim, and you are under the impression that you haven't made any claims because you "cleverly" hid them into a question.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Go and educate yourself about what objective morality us, and we can continue the conversation

Just tell what objective moral values anyone is obligated to follow without God.

First, tell me why you think moral values are objective. If you like, you can answer by example - what acts are ALWAYS moral or immoral, that kind of thing.

Boru

[The Architect Of Fate]

His question is like asking " If there were no flying spaghetti monster were would the value cuteness of kittens come from " you have not actually established the link between those two things let alone provide a basis of how its absence affects the subject matter.

[Sheldon]

What objective standard would make anything right or wrong with a deity?

That's changing the topic. Answer my question. If there's no God, what objective standard can we appeal to? The moral argument is undefeated. All you can do is change the topic or offer a tu quoque fallacy or whataboutism

I don't accept the premise of your question, as was clear when I answered it above, which you haven't bothered to read. Your question is meaningless unless you can demonstrate that a deity exists and has provided objective morality. You don't get to dictate how anyone responds to the unevidenced assumption in your question. As was explained previously, asking you to justify the unevidenced assumption in your loaded question is not a fallacy. 

The word god in your question is moot.

[The Architect Of Fate]

This reminds me of a debate I had with a theist who asked me where laws come from but never clarified what kind of laws we were discussing.

[AngelThMan]

Just tell what objective moral values anyone is obligated to follow without God.

First, tell me why you think moral values are objective. If you like, you can answer by example - what acts are ALWAYS moral or immoral, that kind of thing.

Boru

That's a really dumb question. Why would moral values or any values be inherently objective? The question is, can they be objective? So you agree under atheism there are no objective moral values?

[Sheldon]

I know, and I didn't commit one, because I made no statement.
Let's go on

Show us that you know what objective morals are. Define them, in your own words.

Would it be right to kill a baby if God told you so?
Is it ever right to disobey his commands?

Here are more, also really easy to answer:
Did your god have the capacity to order baby killing in the past?
Does he ever change?
Does he currently still posess this capacity?

You see. No statement, no fallacy, just plain questions, simple and easy to answer with yes or no.

Make Jesus proud!!!!!

Asking a question to answer a question is a tu quoque fallacy. It doesn't have to be statement. It's changing the topic. Go ask ai if I'm correct.

No it is not fallacious, and no it did not change the topic. 

AngelThMan Wrote: 

If there's no God, nothing is objectively right or wrong or evil. Do you agree?

 
The question only makes any sense if one accepts the existence of a deity provides an objective moral standard, I don't accept that premise, most especially as you've not attempted to evidence that assumption. 

Tell you what give us a moral absolute, just one, then explain why it is objectively true. I'd bet my house when you offer it, it will rest on a subjective assumption.

[AngelThMan]

That's changing the topic. Answer my question. If there's no God, what objective standard can we appeal to? The moral argument is undefeated. All you can do is change the topic or offer a tu quoque fallacy or whataboutism

I don't accept the premise of your question, as was clear when I answered it above, which you haven't bothered to read. Your question is meaningless unless you can demonstrate that a deity exists and has provided objective morality. You don't get to dictate how anyone responds to the unevidenced assumption in your question. As was explained previously, asking you to justify the unevidenced assumption in your loaded question is not a fallacy. 

The word god in your question is moot.

Without God, there are no moral obligations. There is no standard anyone is required to follow. So as long as a serial rapist gets away with it, like Jimmy Seville, there's no obligation unless there's an objective standard, which there is with God. That's my argument. Now address my argument and stop deflecting. Is there an objectively moral obligation under atheism?

[The Architect Of Fate]

I love how he continues to make assertions but never actually follows through on establishing anything. He has not even made an argument he made an assertion and gets huffy when we won't play along  

[Sheldon]

And this is the fun part:

Why would he think I make a tu quoque???? Seems he knows the answer which he does not want to make public, because it would expose the bankruptcy of his divine command theory and how rotten his mind is because of religion.

 If there's no God, nothing is right or wrong. Do you agree? If not, what objective morality exists?

No I do not agree, and I don't believe any objective moral standard exists either. I can consider rape wrong or immoral without it being objectively true, all I need do is care or empathise about other humans, give it a try. Further more, I do not accept that blindly following rules is morality, even from a deity, assuming you could evidence any deity exists, which is unlikely, or you'd have opened with that.