>P1: If atheism is true, objective morality does not exist.>P2: Objective morality does exist.>C: Atheism is false.Why can't theists defend P2? It's one of the most popular theist arguments but most never even try to defend that premise. When an atheist grants P1 but denies P2, the average theist is suddenly like the dog who caught the car.
>>18614303When i walk my dog by the beach it barks at waves.
>>18614303Why do you keep making this thread over and over despite being BTFO every time? Do you have brain damage?
>>18614486>BTFOLiterally how lol.
>>18614303>P1: If atheism is true, objective morality does not exist.Plainly false.>P2: Objective morality does exist.Contentious.
This is why I think most theists are lowkey retarded. It's like they can't actually identify what they need to do in order to ensure that the argument is successful. This inability to figure out what it means to defend an argument is up there with shit like the fucking breakfast question.
>>18614486Most people on this board are unironically autistic.
>>18614586Still holding out for that one autistic theist who will actually try to defend premise 2 rather than throw a tantrum.
>>18614303Because the strategy is to just sandbag the conversation if someone denies objective morality. >oh so you don't think it's wrong to rape babies and then set them on fire? checkmate, atheist Same goes for the argumentation ethicists. None of these retards can continue to have a mature conversation if their interlocutor denies objective morality.
>>18614593Don’t they normally just start spamming ai images and telling everyone to enjoy hell?
>>18614303Deistic perspective: constitutional psychopaths incapable of remorse, therefore amoral creator. Morals is game theory writ large.
>>18615511>>oh so you don't think it's wrong to rape babies and then set them on fire?According to the bible, burning babies of rival clans is fine, but you have to wait until the virgin females hit puberty to rape them.
