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

[Deesse23]

This guy keeps repeating how dumb Atheists are. I wonder how dumb he was when he was an Atheist.

[AngelThMan]

This guy keeps repeating how dumb Atheists are. I wonder how dumb he was when he was an Atheist.

So far no one except one person engaged. The others were all over the place, changing the topic, Gish-galloping and crashing out. Not one was able to show how an OBJECTIVE standard for morality can exist without a deity. Can YOU actually do it without a tu quoque fallacy, answering with a question, whataboutism, red herring, etc.?

[The Architect Of Fate]

1.Nobody has committed any of the mentioned fallacies, nor has anyone shifted the topic or in any way abruptly dropped out.
2. Everyone has answered your silly question and engaged, but it’s you who has failed in every way so far.
3. So far, you have no basis for claiming objective morality, and you have been schooled by everyone in this thread.

[Deesse23]

This guy keeps repeating how dumb Atheists are. I wonder how dumb he was when he was an Atheist.

So far no one except one person engaged. The others were all over the place, changing the topic, Gish-galloping and crashing out. Not one was able to show how an OBJECTIVE standard for morality can exist without a deity. Can YOU actually do it without a tu quoque fallacy, answering with a question, whataboutism, red herring, etc.?

You cant establish that objective standards exist with a deity, remember? Your entire script fails from the start. 
Wrt to teh fallacies you mentioned. I did neither of those. I dont even care if you are too dishonest or too stupid to even know what they mean. You just keep lying. I am not impressed. You are like a bad rash. After some time, you will be gone, either way.

How dumb exactly were you as an Atheist again??

[The Architect Of Fate]

So far no one except one person engaged. The others were all over the place, changing the topic, Gish-galloping and crashing out. Not one was able to show how an OBJECTIVE standard for morality can exist without a deity. Can YOU actually do it without a tu quoque fallacy, answering with a question, whataboutism, red herring, etc.?

You cant establish that objective standards exist with a deity, remember? Your entire script fails from the start. 
Wrt to teh fallacies you mentioned. I did neither of those. I dont even care if you are too dishonest or too stupid to even know what they mean. You just keep lying. I am not impressed. You are like a bad rash. After some time, you will be gone, either way.

How dumb exactly were you as an Atheist again??

Yup, dense as a fence post. I mean, he had to copy and paste AI drivel and thought that was a refutation.  

[Deesse23]

Since you seem to like AI, i had AI analyse your behaviour. Can you guess the result?? 

1. Habitual Evasion via "Fallacy-Crying"
Whenever other users present valid philosophical counter-arguments or ask questions about divine command theory, AngelThMan completely avoids answering by immediately shouting "fallacy!".

• They repeatedly claim that any question directed back at them is a "tu quoque fallacy", a "whataboutism", or a "red herring".
  
  
• They use this technique as a absolute shield to preserve their own premise without ever having to defend it.
  

2. Repetitive Script-Parroting
AngelThMan operates in a narrow loop, asking the exact same question ad nauseam while ignoring the thorough responses given by other members.

• They continuously demand to know what objective standard exists under atheism to prove that actions like rape or murder are bad.
  
  
• Even after multiple users clarify that they believe all morality is subjective (including theistic morality), AngelThMan completely ignores the nuance. They simply declare victory by repeating: "So my original premise is correct: Without God, nothing is right or wrong".
  
  
  

3. Escalation to Insults (Ad Hominem)
As the forum members point out the logical gaps in their reasoning, AngelThMan abandons their calm demeanor and turns to direct insults:

• They explicitly call their debating opponents "dumb" and "dumbass".
  
  
• They mockingly label responses as "silly" or "foolish" when they cannot answer them logically.
  

4. Setting Double Standards
AngelThMan displays a glaring double standard regarding debate rules. They aggressively insist that answering a question with a question is a logical fallacy. However, when other members demand that they explain why God's morality is objective, AngelThMan immediately breaks their own rule by deflecting with a question: "Why would moral values or any values be inherently objective?"
Ultimately, AngelThMan behaves like a bad-faith internet troll. They are entirely uninterested in mutual discussion, rely heavily on repetitive talking points, issue hollow ultimatums ("answer me or I leave"), and throw insults when they find themselves philosophically cornered.



..and this is only page 1-11

[Deesse23]

Page 12-21

1. Outsourcing Arguments to AI
In a highly telling development on page 19, AngelThMan is no longer able to manually counter the users. They copy an opponent's post, feed it into an AI tool, and paste the generated text block into the forum to declare a robotic "victory" over user The Architect Of Fate.

• They use the AI's diagnostic text to claim their opponent committed "Circular Reasoning" and "Ad Hominem" fallacies.
  
  
• This behavior backfires immediately, drawing intense mockery from the forum members for being unable to think independently ("Its also very telling you require AI to think for you" and "He even needed to lie to AI, straw manning the actual response").
  

2. Hollow "Dismissals" and Rage-Quitting Bluffs
AngelThMan repeatedly attempts to assert authority over the chat by "dismissing" members like a schoolmaster when cornered:

• To Sheldon, they write: "That's a stupid argument. You're dismissed."
  
  
• To the forum administrator, they snap: "That's not an argument. You're dismissed. I'm not wasting my time on you".
  
  
• They consistently issue final ultimatums—stating "We're done" or threating to stop replying—only to return moments later to keep arguing, exposing their exits as empty posturing.
  
  
  

3. Absolute Denial of Peer Answers
Throughout the entire second half of the thread, AngelThMan aggressively maintains that "no one except one person engaged" and that no one answered their question. This is an overt display of gaslighting; users Sheldon, The Grand Nudger, and Paleophyte had explicitly laid out subjective, relative, and physical reality frameworks for morality on several occasions. AngelThMan simply blanks out these text boxes because the answers do not match their pre-written script.

4. Resorting to Pure Toxic Ad Hominem
By the final page, any remaining pretense of religious "gentleness" or "respect" is completely gone. AngelThMan's vocabulary devolves into pure forum toxicity:

• They hurl direct insults such as "idiot", "dumbass", and tell users to "get lost".
  
  
• They accuse the entire user base of "crashing out" and "Gish-galloping" to protect their cognitive dissonance.
  

Summary of the 21-Page Arc
AngelThMan entered the forum expecting a quick, triumphant deployment of the classic Theistic Moral Argument. When the atheist counter-parties refused to accept the core premise and instead flipped the burden of proof, AngelThMan experienced total structural breakdown. They spent the remainder of the thread crying fallacy, generating toxic insults, hiding behind an AI bot, and running in an endless loop until the thread naturally expired with the community labeling them "dense as a fence post" and a "bad rash."

[The Architect Of Fate]

See it was written in AI  therefore it's gospel .....

[Nay_Sayer]

This guy keeps repeating how dumb Atheists are. I wonder how dumb he was when he was an Atheist.

So far no one except one person engaged. The others were all over the place, changing the topic, Gish-galloping and crashing out. Not one was able to show how an OBJECTIVE standard for morality can exist without a deity. Can YOU actually do it without a tu quoque fallacy, answering with a question, whataboutism, red herring, etc.?

Not true. Anyway, I continue to pray that you let FSM into your heart and reject your demonic ways.

RAmen.

[AngelThMan]

1.Nobody has committed any of the mentioned fallacies, nor has anyone shifted the topic or in any way abruptly dropped out.
2. Everyone has answered your silly question and engaged, but it’s you who has failed in every way so far.
3. So far, you have no basis for claiming objective morality, and you have been schooled by everyone in this thread.

This shows how stupid you are. I never claimed to have objective morality. Just that under atheism no objective morality can exist. That's it. You have not answered any of that. I've already showed you evidence of your fallacies and stupidity. Get lost