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

[Kitan Etos]

Someone seems to be under the assumption that objective morality not existing under atheism must mean an argument for objective morality under god must be true.

[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.

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

No, this shows how stupid you are. Yes, you are claiming to have objective morality you just won't defend it and instead engage in this sad attempt at an apologist gotcha which you have failed at in every way possible. You showed nothing, a bunch of copy and paste AI drivel means nothing dumbass. So no, you get lost.

[AngelThMan]

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??

This shows your stupidity and the stupidity of most atheists that have replied to this thread. I NEVER CLAIMED THAT OBJECTIVE MORALITY STANDARDS EXIST WITH A DEITY. The topic is: Without a deity, an objective moral standard cannot exist. That's it. Those are different topics. If you understood philosophy, you would understand that answering that I haven't established morality under a deity is not addressing the topic. It's a red herring fallacy. You are changing the topic, but never even tried to refute my premise. If you don't believe me, ask ai

[Sheldon]

Well of course religious arguments for moral objectivism, generally argue that God's immutable nature serves as an objective anchor for goodness, Lane Craig has used this. Under this view, moral values are grounded in a necessary, supreme reality that transcends human opinion, culture, and time.

The problem for me is that there is no evidence any deity exists, and humans have imagined countless deities and religions, so value judgments grounded in objective reality, even if they ultimately rest on subjective preferences, are demonstrably superior to unevidenced deities offering diktat through a myriad of archaic religious texts. This had Lane Craig embarrassing himself by publicly defending divine genocide as moral, because by his rationale the deity he imagines is perfectly moral, thus any action by it must also be moral. 

 Equally problematic for me, is that even if anyone could establish such a deity exists, how would they demonstrate that it's moral opinions were any less subjective than that of humans. The fact it had Lane Craig, for example, defending genocide as good / moral, is a large clue as to why blindly surrendering morality to the claims of archaic religious texts is problematic. It had Christians for example defending slavery, and homophobia, and using the bible as evidence. 

All we have to evaluate moral claims is our reason, if we surrender that to blind faith, then that's not morality to me, even "good" Nazis managed to blindly follow rules.

Well, in my case, I don't know where I stand on the question of 'moral realism'... ie 'objective morality' as Nudger talks about it. But what I do know, is that positing a 'being', however powerful it is, does not get around the problem of 'objective morality' in the slightest... blatantly obviously. And IF what he's talking about is classical theology... if that's what you're saying he is... then that no better, IMO, solves the problem, because there's no way to tie that idealised classical theology to the world we actually see. I'll leave it to my betters... like you and Nudger... to argue the case, if you can be arsed arguing with this OP, but I have no interest in doing so beyond this. Personally I lean more towards it being subjective... just the way our brains have evolved... such as the capacity for empathy, and even if that capacity, is not guaranteed to be the same in all people, it still remains to me a much better and more admirable explanation, than people who essentially need a book to tell them what is moral and what is not, masquerading it for nobility, but would change the book's rules they follow, in an instant, if it offered them something better for a cheaper price.

To be clear the thread author has offered nothing beyond a loaded question, I seriously doubt that he is here for, or has any interest in debating the complexity of morality.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Trying to pretend he is not claiming objective morality via theism is by far his most brain-dead trick yet, and no the topic is objective morality periods, they are not different topics, they are directly related and his failure to place objective morality under a deity moots the whole conversation everyone has dealt with his BS point and counter even better one that shows he has no leg to even stand on here and again appealing to AI . . . ... Lol

[AngelThMan]

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

I posted exactly what I asked AI. I posted my argument and your reply, sticking only to the topic. You have not posted what you asked ai. You may have posted moments of frustration, which are not the argument. I only posted my argument and your rebuttal on the topic. You likely posted meta stuff to the ai, such as my insults. And yes, you're a moron that knows nothing about logic.

[Sheldon]

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.?

More straw manning I see, many of the posters don't believe there is an objective standard for morality, and have explained this, so explain this genius, why are they required to demonstrate a standard of morality they don't believe exists, but you do?

The sheer dishonesty is trumped only by the sheer stupidity of that assertion. I answered all your questions, and you have not answered a single one of mine, and lied repeatedly that I had not answered yours, as anyone can see if they read the thread.

[Sheldon]

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. 

Then as was pointed out right at the start your question is meaningless, also this is one of the stupidest posts I have ever read. I see he is now trying the old switcheroo for a gotcha moment that trolls think is clever, hate to say I told you so, trolltacular.

[The Architect Of Fate]

I posted exactly what I asked AI. I posted my argument and your reply, sticking only to the topic. You have not posted what you asked ai. You may have posted moments of frustration, which are not the argument. I only posted my argument and your rebuttal on the topic. You likely posted meta stuff to the ai, such as my insults. And yes, you're a moron that knows nothing about logic.

You posted a bunch of copy-and-paste AI drivel, and Deesse rightly mocked you for it. Once again, you seem to be the only one here who doesn't understand  logic. 

[Sheldon]

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??

I NEVER CLAIMED THAT OBJECTIVE MORALITY STANDARDS EXIST WITH A DEITY. The topic is: Without a deity, an objective moral standard cannot exist.

So you asked how something you don't believe exists can exist, that speaks for itself. then when posters explained they don't believe it exists you lied and said they hadn't. Then when that ran it's course you asked what standard I used to base morality on, then ignored my answer, and then lied repeatedly that I'd not given any.  

I'd bet a months wages you will spin this again soon, in this lying trolltacular display.