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

[Ravenshire]

OFC, because forced birtherism harms women and does not protect children.  Pretty cut and dry - it objectively fails to do what it purports to do and succeeds at harm instead.  What moral person who believes in actual rights and wrongs wouldn't reject it?

Is your stance an objective moral truth or just your opinion? Many others disagree.

Objective moral truths are a fantasy.

[AngelThMan]

Is your stance an objective moral truth or just your opinion? Many others disagree.

We've already been over this.  We all have opinions.  I just told you why I thought forced birtherism was wrong.  Look it up and see if it's true.

Your opinion means nothing to anyone but you

[Paleophyte]

Attaboy!! You’re getting it.

Boru

So rape is not actually wrong. Is that how you live your life?

You can't tell the difference between evil and wrong?

2+2=5 is wrong

[The Grand Nudger]

We've already been over this.  We all have opinions.  I just told you why I thought forced birtherism was wrong.  Look it up and see if it's true.

Your opinion means nothing to anyone but you

That's probably not true, but so what if it were?  Again, as we've already discussed, moral disagreement doesn't show that moral realism is false, and moral realism doesn't require moral agreement to be true. Like gods, whether or not we all have the same opinion is irrelevant to whether or not there is a correct one. I reject forced birtherism because it is immoral. It is immoral because it fails to do what it purports to do and succeeds at harm instead. I like to think that the people who support it are just mistaken. Under moral realism, being wrong about the facts of a thing is material to the accuracy of the moral conclusion. Garbage in, garbage out, you know?

They think it helps - they've probably been conditioned by their communities to believe that it does (there's relativism for you!). If they knew the truth, perhaps they would reject it as well. I don't count on people valuing my opinion to reach accurate moral conclusions. I count on them caring about the truth of their own conclusions.

[Paleophyte]

So in a morality where rape is okay, then it’fine since it's subjectively fine?

That’s kind of a redundant statement, but yes. Masters raping slaves, husbands raping wives, fathers raping their children, lords raping their subjects - ALL of these were, at one time or another, positive moral behaviours, justified (in some cases) by Holy Writ.

Boru

In certain parts of the world, it still is.

[AngelThMan]

Is your stance an objective moral truth or just your opinion? Many others disagree.

Objective moral truths are a fantasy.

So then nothing can be wrong

[AngelThMan]

Your opinion means nothing to anyone but you

That's probably not true, but so what if it were?  Again, as we've already discussed, moral disagreement doesn't show that moral realism is false, and moral realism doesn't require moral agreement to be true.  Like gods, whether or not we all have the same opinion is irrelevant to whether or not there is a correct one.  I reject forced birtherism because it is immoral.  It is immoral because it fails to do what it purports to do and succeeds at harm instead.

The moment I see "god" or "gods" I will stop reading. It's a red herring since I haven't mentioned God. I'm doing an internal critique of atheism.

Moral realism? What's that? Sounds like you're trying to have your cake and eat it, too

[Paleophyte]

Objective moral truths are a fantasy.

So then nothing can be wrong

Nothing can be objectively wrong. Get with the program.

Were smallpox-infested blankets distributed by priests wrong?
Was it wrong of Cortez to strap new converts to cannons and send them directly to heaven?
Was it wrong of Christianity to exterminate cultures on every continent that it visited?

Asking for a friend.

[The Grand Nudger]

Moral realism is the thing you think doesn't exist "under atheism" - and yet it does (rightly or wrongly)..here I am, and I have been talking to you about it the entire time, trying to correct your misunderstandings. Do you care about the truth of your conclusions?

[Paleophyte]

That's probably not true, but so what if it were?  Again, as we've already discussed, moral disagreement doesn't show that moral realism is false, and moral realism doesn't require moral agreement to be true.  Like gods, whether or not we all have the same opinion is irrelevant to whether or not there is a correct one.  I reject forced birtherism because it is immoral.  It is immoral because it fails to do what it purports to do and succeeds at harm instead.

The moment I see "god" or "gods" I will stop reading. It's a red herring since I haven't mentioned God. I'm doing an internal critique of atheism.

Moral realism? What's that? Sounds like you're trying to have your cake and eat it, too

***Looks at the title of the post where OP clearly wrote the word G. O. D. and wonders how stupid he thinks we are.***