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

[Ravenshire]

Once again twisting my words to attempt forcing them into your pathetic little narrative.

I'm really trying to understand. How is anything wrong if "Objective moral truths are a fantasy??"

You're not trying to understand. You're trying to reinforce your pre-determined position.

How things can be right or wrong without moral absolutism has been described ad nauseam in this thread. You've just been ignoring it in favor of your preferred narrative.

Or, you're just too dumb to understand. Do we need to use more crayon?

[Ravenshire]

Only in pointing out red herrings. My OP is an internal critique on atheism. I made no claims about God at all. Please post any claim I made about God and I will apologize

Reread that.  You said you had never mentioned God.  When it's pointed out that you have multiple times you switch it up to CLAIMS about God.  

Tell us how you haven't MENTIONED God.

And, he conveniently ignores the implied claim that comes with adding the words "without gawd."

[AngelThMan]

If objective moral truths are a fantasy then things could still be subjectively wrong.  

OFC..I don't believe that objective moral truths are a fantasy.  I think they're comparatively rare, and difficult, but I don't think there's any truth content difference between my saying that the sun rises in the east and that forced birtherism is immoral, for example.  Both statements purport to report a fact, and if they accurately report that fact, then they would be true in the same way that any other such statement would be.

The thread title itself is a claim about gods - namely that in their absence, nothing is right or wrong.  That doesn't follow.  Not only are there multiple ways that things can be right or wrong with or without gods, things can be objectively right or wrong with or without gods.  Do you care about the truth of your statements or the truth of your conclusions?  I ask because, as I mentioned a few pages back, there's really not much room to discuss this or any other subject if you don't.

I define atheism as "there's no God." I meant to reference atheism. Perhaps I should have said "atheist worldview" instead of "there's no God," but then that invites pointless debates about atheism not being a worldview. That's what I was trying to avoid. But now you know what I meant. It's about atheism, not theism.

So you're saying that "birtherism" being immoral is as true as the sun rising from the east?? So then why is the topic so debated? If your truth were so clear, there wouldn't be debate. Sorry, but it's inaccurate to say that your point of view is the absolute truth. You're making yourself the arbiter of morality

[AngelThMan]

I'm really trying to understand. How is anything wrong if "Objective moral truths are a fantasy??"

You're not trying to understand. You're trying to reinforce your pre-determined position.

How things can be right or wrong without moral absolutism has been described ad nauseam in this thread. You've just been ignoring it in favor of your preferred narrative.

Or, you're just too dumb to understand. Do we need to use more crayon?

It's failed every time. Post your argument. I'm not going to continue responding to you with your nonsense posts, such as pointing to other people's explanations, which is fallacious reasoning. Next bad faith comment will be the last one I read

[awty]

Worst troll evah!

[The Grand Nudger]

I define atheism as "there's no God." I meant to reference atheism. Perhaps I should have said "atheist worldview" instead of "there's no God," but then that invites pointless debates about atheism not being a worldview. That's what I was trying to avoid. But now you know what I meant. It's about atheism, not theism.

-and you continue to be wrong.  Regardless of whether or not there are gods, regardless of whether or not atheism is a worldview, moral statements either are or can be true..or they are not or cannot be true.  I believe that they can be true, and that some are true.  I've given you an example of a moral statement I believe to be true, and why I believe it to be true, a moral statement you had specifically asked about. I think forced birtherism is wrong because it fails to do what it purports to do and succeeds at harming women instead. Do you think I've got those facts wrong, or do you think those facts do not matter?

So you're saying that "birtherism" being immoral is as true as the sun rising from the east?? So then why is the topic so debated? If your truth were so clear, there wouldn't be debate. Sorry, but it's inaccurate to say that your point of view is the absolute truth. You're making yourself the arbiter of morality

-and you continue to be wrong.  People debate over facts all the time.  I keep explaining why moral disagreement doesn't mean what you think it means and you keep going back to moral disagreement.  I say the answer to 1+1 is 2.  Someone else says the answer to 1+1 is fish.  Does this mean that there is no correct answer or that neither of us has the correct answer?  As I have explained to you multiple times just today, as a moral realist..a person who believes that moral statements can be objectively true or false, I believe that facts are the arbitrator of which moral statements are true or false.

Do you care whether your claims and conclusions are true or not? Do you think that truth matters, in this or any other subject? You asked about a path to moral realism. This is the first stone in that path. If you don't think that facts matter to this or any other subject then there will be no path to moral realism for you. I would also not expect moral behavior from you.

[Ravenshire]

You're not trying to understand. You're trying to reinforce your pre-determined position.

How things can be right or wrong without moral absolutism has been described ad nauseam in this thread. You've just been ignoring it in favor of your preferred narrative.

Or, you're just too dumb to understand. Do we need to use more crayon?

It's failed every time. Post your argument. I'm not going to continue responding to you with your nonsense posts, such as pointing to other people's explanations, which is fallacious reasoning. Next bad faith comment will be the last one I read

I've already explained it. That you can't understand it is a you problem.

Breaks out crayons...

Please do ignore me. Then I can just point and laugh and quit the fool's game of trying to educate the willfully ignorant.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

(Bold mine)

I took it upon myself to do a bit of research - you have mentioned God at least 25 times in this thread (I may have missed a few).

Boru

Only in pointing out red herrings. My OP is an internal critique on atheism. I made no claims about God at all. Please post any claim I made about God and I will apologize

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

I await your apology.

Boru

[AngelThMan]

I define atheism as "there's no God." I meant to reference atheism. Perhaps I should have said "atheist worldview" instead of "there's no God," but then that invites pointless debates about atheism not being a worldview. That's what I was trying to avoid. But now you know what I meant. It's about atheism, not theism.

-and you continue to be wrong.  Regardless of whether or not there are gods, regardless of whether or not atheism is a worldview, moral statements either are or can be true..or they are not or cannot be true.  I believe that they can be true, and that some are true.  I've given you an example of a moral statement I believe to be true, and why I believe it to be true, a moral statement you had specifically asked about.  I think forced birtherism is wrong because it fails to do what it purports to do and succeeds at harming women instead.  Do you think I've got those facts wrong, or do you think those facts do not matter?  

So you're saying that "birtherism" being immoral is as true as the sun rising from the east?? So then why is the topic so debated? If your truth were so clear, there wouldn't be debate. Sorry, but it's inaccurate to say that your point of view is the absolute truth. You're making yourself the arbiter of morality

-and you continue to be wrong.  People debate over facts all the time.  I keep explaining why moral disagreement doesn't mean what you think it means and you keep going back to moral disagreement.  I say the answer to 1+1 is 2.  Someone else says the answer to 1+1 is fish.  Does this mean that there is no correct answer or that neither of us has the correct answer?  As I have explained to you multiple times just today, as a moral realist..a person who believes that moral statements can be objectively true or false, I believe that facts are the arbitrator of which moral statements are true or false.

Do you care whether your claims and conclusions are true or not?

Let's get something straight. You're conflating truth with moral values. Those are two different things. You can't say your morality on abortion issues is truth. That's really your euphemism for objective. Instead of saying objective, which you have said doesn't exist, you say "truth." That's a cheat. 2+2=4 is an objective truth. Oughts and duties are not truth, unless there's an arbiter. Are you the arbiter? You can present your opinions on a moral value, and you would call it evidence. But that still doesn't make it a true moral value. It remains a moral opinion.

[AngelThMan]

It's failed every time. Post your argument. I'm not going to continue responding to you with your nonsense posts, such as pointing to other people's explanations, which is fallacious reasoning. Next bad faith comment will be the last one I read

I've already explained it. That you can't understand it is a you problem.

Breaks out crayons...

Please do ignore me. Then I can just point and laugh and quit the fool's game of trying to educate the willfully ignorant.

We're done. I will not read anything with your name