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

[Ravenshire]

Atheism is not a worldview with a built-in moral system.  There are a variety of secular moral philosophies which atheists uphold, as you have been told.  You think your system is superior.  We each think ours are more accurate, and have argued why.

If you don't like the many answers atheists have offered you in this long discussion, that is your problem, not ours.

From my personal perspective, the single greatest moral failing of most religious people is their arrogance.  It blinds them to the world around them, so they blunder around causing all sorts of conflict and harm.

Topic change. That makes your argument a red herring fallacy. Learn some logic

Nobody here has gone off-topic as much as you, chuckle-fuck.

[AngelThMan]

There has to be an arbiter.

Who made up that rule

Exactly. There are no rules. And without rules there's no objective morality. And without objective morality, there's no morality period. I don't have to abide by society's opinion on what's moral.

"if subjectivity is true, everyone is their own decider and all moral statements"

I agree. But other people's moral opinions don't apply to me. I can do whatever I want and it's not immoral, since there's no morality without objective rules.

In China it's illegal to go on Facebook. Does that mean going on Facebook is immoral? There would have to be an objective moral rule about Facebook in the universe in order for FB to be inherently immoral.

You also never answered (or at least I didn't see it) my question about lions killing the offspring of prides they take over. Did they do anything immoral? If no, that presents a problem for the atheist, because from that point of view there is no soul and every creature arises from nature. Every creature is equal in terms of wanting to live. So why is a human killing a human immoral but not a lion killing offspring?

[Kitan Etos]

Not all rules have a moral foundation, however.

[Paleophyte]

No religious group shows more moral behaviour than any other. From this, we may infer that if a deity exists, its moral guidance is either unknown or useless.

[Paleophyte]

In China it's illegal to go on Facebook. Does that mean going on Facebook is immoral? There would have to be an objective moral rule about Facebook in the universe in order for FB to be inherently immoral.

This stunned bunny seems to be too clueless to understand the difference between morals and laws. I'm getting the feeling that he was bounced on his head at birth. Vigorously.

[Ravenshire]

Who made up that rule

Exactly. There are no rules. And without rules there's no objective morality. And without objective morality, there's no morality period. I don't have to abide by society's opinion on what's moral.

"if subjectivity is true, everyone is their own decider and all moral statements"

I agree. But other people's moral opinions don't apply to me. I can do whatever I want and it's not immoral, since there's no morality without objective rules.

In China it's illegal to go on Facebook. Does that mean going on Facebook is immoral? There would have to be an objective moral rule about Facebook in the universe in order for FB to be inherently immoral.

You also never answered (or at least I didn't see it) my question about lions killing the offspring of prides they take over. Did they do anything immoral? If no, that presents a problem for the atheist, because from that point of view there is no soul and every creature arises from nature. Every creature is equal in terms of wanting to live. So why is a human killing a human immoral but not a lion killing offspring?

Damn you're dumb!

[Paleophyte]

Topic change. That makes your argument a red herring fallacy. Learn some logic

Nobody here has gone off-topic as much as you, chuckle-fuck.

This sounds like a challenge.

[Ravenshire]

Nobody here has gone off-topic as much as you, chuckle-fuck.

This sounds like a challenge.

I see no harm since the subject is already done to death and the OP has failed utterly in all of its aims.

[The Grand Nudger]

Who made up that rule

Exactly. There are no rules. And without rules there's no objective morality. And without objective morality, there's no morality period. I don't have to abide by society's opinion on what's moral.

Then there is no rule that there has to be a decider.  

"if subjectivity is true, everyone is their own decider and all moral statements"

I agree. But other people's moral opinions don't apply to me. I can do whatever I want and it's not immoral, since there's no morality without objective rules.

That's probably not true.  It's entirely likely that you might want to do things that are immoral to you.  You may even decide that other peoples opinions are of great value. If you're reducing morality to something like desires that's not subjectivity, relativity, objectivity, or atheism.  It's non cognitivism.  Emotivism.  Yum and Yuck.  

In China it's illegal to go on Facebook. Does that mean going on Facebook is immoral? There would have to be an objective moral rule about Facebook in the universe in order for FB to be inherently immoral.

In a relativist's universe, yeah, sure.  That's what that would mean.  It's a fair assumption that a morality organized around societal codes would say that it's bad to break the law, and since facebook is against the law, it's bad to go on facebook.

You also never answered (or at least I didn't see it) my question about lions killing the offspring of prides they take over. Did they do anything immoral?

As I said, I don't think lions are moral agents. So, no. If I try to imagine a world where I think they are moral agents, I couldn't describe them as competent ones.

If no, that presents a problem for the atheist, because from that point of view there is no soul and every creature arises from nature. Every creature is equal in terms of wanting to live. So why is a human killing a human immoral but not a lion killing offspring?

Well that comes speeding out of left field doesn't it?  I don't think there's any obvious connection between lions not being moral agents and there being no souls or every creature arising from nature.  The first thing that strikes me about this is.....and?  Why would it be a problem for atheism if there were no soul and every creature arose from nature?  Sounds like a win condition to me.....

The second thing is that..as I keep saying, I'm an atheist and a moral realist.  I lean towards objectivity, not absolutism.  You're expressing the opinion that moral absolutism has a problem, not atheism.  If moral absolutism were true then it would be very difficult to explain why a human killing a human was bad and a lion killing cubs was not.

[The Grand Nudger]

Do you know what I think this whole "there has to be a decider" business comes from? It's not a statement of fact, it's a primal scream. Because, really, no matter what angle we come at it from, there doesn't have to be a decider. Atheism could be true or false, and theism could be true or false..and in every combination... it's possible that there still isn't one. Just like it's possible that people escape accountability in this life or the next life, adding that little wrinkle, again in any combination.

The logical form of this argument is an appeal to consequences. The notion that a proposition is false because the outcome is undesirable. That you've managed to conflate one thing for another -in- that appeal just piles on, increasing confusion.

If I were to pretty up your objection - give it the iron man treatment, perhaps we could view it as a comment on how atheism is not fertile ground for authoritarian deontological structures that rely on threats or fears or expectations of retaliation to promote conformity which may have benefits to producing moral outcomes. That might be true, there might be a trade off. OFC stalin has already come up in thread so I'm not really sure that atheism can't be just as fertile as theism here. It seems like we can fall into this trap regardless of what we believe, or are supposed to believe, about gods.