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

[Kitan Etos]

The world is perceived subjectively by each individual. Some people rely on their subjective conscience to understand what is right or wrong despite being told by others how they should perceive right or wrong. In fact, for something to be considered an objective moral, everyone in the entire world would have to agree on whether something is right or wrong. That just doesn't happen. So from this, what can you infer. Put on that thinking cap.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Nowhere did he say that .....lol

But I meant it.

Boru

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I may be an idiot (opinions vary), but I’m not uneducated.
Boru

I can confirm one of those!

❤️

Boru

[Ravenshire]

You are obviously hiding behind semantics, with your "I never said..." bullshit. Why don't you quit with the bullshit, quit with the bad logic, quit with mis-labeling everything you don't personally agree with as a fallacy, and get to your fucking point already. Your rampant dishonesty is getting tiresome.

Using the word "semantic" doesn't erase your tu quoque fallacy.

Last chance. If you can't answer, we're done. I will no longer reply to you.

Lets say there are no gawds. The universe is just nature. That is all I'm commenting on. How do you establish that anything is objectively evil? What standard would you invoke?

Look, dumbass. You keep going on about my alleged tu quoque while ignoring that I'm actually agreeing with your premise. I'm just pointing up that you're adding an extra level of unnecessary complexity. There are no objective moral standards, full stop. Adding the "without gawd" part is not necessary. It's not my fault you lack the intellectual capacity to understand that.

As to your "threat" to stop responding, feel free. It won't stop me from pointing and laughing.

[Ravenshire]

I don’t agree because I don’t think there’s any such thing as an objective moral standard.

I didn’t bother answering your follow-up [note correct spelling] because it’s the same question. My answer serves for both.

No one is dodging. You just keep asking the same question over and over, trying to get the answer that will soothe your nerves and cure your erectile dysfunction.

I may be an idiot (opinions vary), but I’m not uneducated.

Boru

Fine. You don't believe in objective morality. So then it follows nothing is objectively right or wrong? Correct?

Do you really dismiss subjective morality so easily?!?

[The Architect Of Fate]

Using the word "semantic" doesn't erase your tu quoque fallacy.

Last chance. If you can't answer, we're done. I will no longer reply to you.

Lets say there are no gawds. The universe is just nature. That is all I'm commenting on. How do you establish that anything is objectively evil? What standard would you invoke?

Look, dumbass. You keep going on about my alleged tu quoque while ignoring that I'm actually agreeing with your premise. I'm just pointing up that you're adding an extra level of unnecessary complexity. There are no objective moral standards, full stop. Adding the "without gawd" part is not necessary. It's not my fault you lack the intellectual capacity to understand that.

As to your "threat" to stop responding, feel free. It won't stop me from pointing and laughing.

The difference is that he has engaged in semantics, while you have not committed a tu quoque fallacy, making his point irrelevant.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Maybe he will copy and paste some AI drivel next 

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Fine. You don't believe in objective morality. So then it follows nothing is objectively right or wrong? Correct?

Do you really dismiss subjective morality so easily?!?

He has to. His bullshit protestations about not discussing theism aside, he is touting objective morality as a defense of his particular Godism - if objective morality can’t exist within atheism, then it has to exist under God. Subjective morality is, for him, a dealbreaker.

I haven’t fallen for such specious ‘reasoning’ since I was ten years old.

Boru

[AngelThMan]

Fine. You don't believe in objective morality. So then it follows nothing is objectively right or wrong? Correct?

Correct.

Boru

So then nothing is evil. Not rape, not murder, not starting false religions, not conning people to donate for their fake god. So what are you doing here? Since nothing is wrong, then it's not wrong to pretend a deity exists and make people donate

[AngelThMan]

Fine. You don't believe in objective morality. So then it follows nothing is objectively right or wrong? Correct?

Do you really dismiss subjective morality so easily?!?

Yes. Do you reject pro-life morality?