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

[The Grand Nudger]

@emjay

I think you’re right about that - but I would put it even more specifically and strenuously. That, by definition, no being or any number of beings can be the source of objective morality because independence is very explicitly what that term refers to. OTOH, any and every being can be the source of a subjectivity morality because that…just as before…is exactly what that term refers to.

In that case, a god would not be -the- source of morality, but -a- source of -a- morality.

[Sheldon]

That's evasive. You clearly have only one brain cell. You lose. Can't answer. At least that brain cell realizes it's trapped, which is why you can't answer. Goodbye, moron 

We have a friend who puts cashews in her bread pudding, which I think is a mistake. Do you agree?

Boru

As a face saving flounce, AngelThMan's didn't really work, no panache really. I mean when a child hides behind its hands, it can be cute at least, but when an adult does it, well it's just cringeworthy.  

Cashews you say...

[Kitan Etos]

Objective morality only exists according to the delusions of a dystopia, by forcing it on everyone for fear of repercussion.

[The Grand Nudger]

That sounds more like authoritarianism than moral objectivity - to me. As a moral realist, I think authoritarianism is bad. I’d say ask me why but I bet you can already guess the answer.

[Kitan Etos]

Well, I did state it was according to their delusion. Those who want everyone to be the same tend to operate with dangerous mental perceptions.

[The Architect Of Fate]

 
Doesn’t murder send souls to heaven?

Does god prevent murder or rape or does it just watch it happen?

Spoiler:  Something something morality something something repeated question, now your ignored.

Something something defer brain to AI and shout fallacy alot

[awty]

Angie has waved the white flag.

I suppose this thread is now about lions, dogs, cats but not penguins

They know what they did....-_-

Here I was, wondering what I had done.  

[The Grand Nudger]

Here’s something I’ve been wondering. Lay aside any dispute over the nature of moral systems in principal or in practice. Suppose the claim is true. How would that be an internal critique of atheism? Even there we have to just go along…because we’ve been told that what the op means by atheism is that there are no gods. Fine. There are no gods. How does the contention (or even the fact) that there is no objective morality provide any sort of criticism or pushback to the claim (or fact) that there are no gods?

[Ravenshire]

Something can be wrong for you. Even with you and a group with which you might affiliate. Just be respectful in understanding that not everyone will share your perspective and please be mindful of not forcing that belief on others.

So then you have to respect pro-lifers by abiding by their law. See how that works?

Or, fight those laws on legal grounds until they're overturned for being the oppressive, harmful bullshit they are.

[Ravenshire]

Remember when a fringe conservative group didn't like the law of abortion being legal? Tell me, shouldn't you have respected the legal abortion law as you're telling me to do now that the pro-life movement only benefits to harm others?

I'm pro-choice, and that's a tu quoque fallacy. You're ignored

The more people you ignore, the more obvious it becomes that you have no answers to their arguments.