The issue is moral realism. I've aruged that the only valid moral realism (objectively true morality) is if it is backed by God. He argues that no official source of academic knowledge accetps that so it's a fallacy. i just "made it up."
Originally Posted by Royce
that is so ridiculous. do ever think for yourself? you are just saying "I can't believe something unless an official group says it's ok to." this is proof positive that atheism is mind control.
you are trying to fit the mold of a thinking intellectual you can't even understand the concept of formulating your own idea with your own arguments without some "peer review" telling you what to think. ( you are not a peer of professors. no you are not. you are not my peer).
that's silly, it's silly.
the real kicker is you say I made it up and it's a false bleief! why is it false?Because I made it up and makes it false. It's not a deduced argument based upon reason it's "made up" as though thinking for yourself is a logical fallacy?
Orwellian atheism you don't dare think of soemthing the handlers didn't tell you to think.You are absolutely forbidden to come up with your own ideas!
to try to tag my attempts and interdependent though as "false" and some kind of fabrication like there's soemthing wrong with doing it just puerile.
That's the implication but what's going on closer to the surface is he's changed the meaning of what I said to the idea taht "you can't be a moral realist without god." I never any such thing. I said it's not grounded without God. It's not going to work as a valid moral position without God I didn't say you can't be a moral realist without God.