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

[The Architect Of Fate]

I love how he keeps saying “for the atheist” as if atheism were an ideology rather than simply a lack of belief in the claim that God exists.

" It's a problem for Afairyiests .....lol

[The Architect Of Fate]

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.

His entire argument reeks of social anxiety, implying that when people aren’t compelled to conform, societal collapse follows. This feels less rational and more driven by fear.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Lol apparently lions killing lions who are not moral agents is somehow equated to humans killing humans who are moral agents , that is pretty wild reasoning.

[Sheldon]

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?

I know what he'll say....

That's evasion, answer the question, you're ignored. 

He will also throw in a petty insult, and fail to notice you did answer the question, albeit hypothetically.

[Sheldon]

You could have just said you're not going to properly engage in discussion by answering as well as asking questions.

If you knew anything about logic and debate, 

[Sheldon]

You could have just said you're not going to properly engage in discussion by answering as well as asking questions.

No one was able to show a path to moral values under atheism. 

Liar, still answered on page 12, HERE point 6. 

Liar liar pants on fire...

[Sheldon]

Who made up that rule

without objective morality, there's no morality period. 

He just gave you two types of morality that aren't objective in that post, it's like teaching a particularly stupid pig to shit in a toilet.

[The Architect Of Fate]

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?

I know what he'll say....

That's evasion, answer the question, you're ignored. 

He will also throw in a petty insult, and fail to notice you did answer the question, albeit hypothetically.

Or throw a wall of AI copy and paste declaring he's refuted you .....lol

[Sheldon]

I am an atheist, as is Nudger, I lean towards moral subjectivism and relativism, Nudger moral objectivism, we both believe acts like rape and murder are wrong / immoral, we both use the same standard, our reason. 

The OP question is as stupid as the following posts, as in both cases morality has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of a deity, and the OP has no understanding of the topic, despite starting a thread and making strident and stupidly incorrect assertions about it, and he has all the charm of a mass grave to boot.

A lion doesn't appear to have sufficient powers to reason moral consequences in the way humans do, so we don't consider lions moral agents and we don't hold them to our moral standard, ample evidence that reason is the source for our morality, NB I said our, other animals exhibit moral behaviour, even lions that have evolved to live in societal groups have a grasp of what the group consider acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. It follows that the roots of our morality is in our evolved past, and that our evolved brains have made that morality ever more complex. 

Now a deity that was omniscient would have limitless faculties to examine the consequences of its actions, if it were omnipotent limitless choice for those outcomes, it follows that it would be maximally culpable for the actions it took.

[Sheldon]

You could have just said you're not going to properly engage in discussion by answering as well as asking questions.

If you knew anything about logic and debate, you would know questions are not answers. They're red herrings. No one was able to show a path to moral values under atheism. Asking questions to derail the conversation is not answering or engaging.

I know enough to know that is a poisoning of the well fallacy. I also know that when a question is loaded or poorly conceived it likely will likely result in queries, but then I am not a closed minded bigot and you clearly are. I also know that critically examining the topic is not derailing it, just because you are utterly closed minded on the topic. I also know that when someone constantly lies that others have committed fallacies they have not, this is called an argument from fallacy or argumentum ad logicam. 

It is also an egregious lie that "no one was able to show a path to moral values under atheism", see my post on page 12 HERE for example, point 6, it's the same path standard as theistic moral assertions, our reason, it just doesn't rely on unevidenced claims for a deity and magic. 

Also...you're a duplicitous clown, so make me laugh clown...that's what clowns are for...