Premise: Objective morals do not exist

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If that is the case torturing a baby for fun cannot always be wrong, but we all know it is.

Answer the question "Why is torturing a baby for fun always wrong" with objectively true facts.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
And in the thousands of years since the bible was written, things have changed and mores have changed yet there is no new word from your god about morality as if morality from 2000 years ago should be identical to morality of today.

The sad part is the morality as written in the bible was written in fact by men and there was no god involved. Yet people ...[text shortened]... u can't is because there was no god involved in ANY human religion. They were ALL 100% man made.

How do you know for a fact that no god was involved?

Originally posted by @fmf
Here's one of your style of 'thought exercises': Assuming your god figure told you to torture babies for fun, would you then torture babies for fun ~ and would it be "objectively" morally sound for you to do so?

Try asking your loaded questions to someone else. I'm not interested.

Originally posted by @js357
Answer the question "Why is torturing a baby for fun always wrong" with objectively true facts.

I would say it is a brute fact. If you disagree, feel free to demonstrate why it is not always wrong to torture a baby for fun.

Originally posted by @apathist
Actually, they agree on the basics. Such as not torturing kids for fun.

Because they know it is objectively wrong to torture a baby for fun?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Try asking your loaded questions to someone else. I'm not interested.

It was one of your style of 'thought exercises'.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
How many people of intelligence and compassion would agree torturing babies for fun is morally acceptable?

Those that believe there are no objective moral standards, because according to them no action is ever always wrong.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Those that believe there are no objective moral standards, because according to them no action is ever always wrong.

But don't you believe any action carried out or sanctioned by your god figure - like genocide for example - can be morally sound, so something like genocide is not "always wrong" to your way of thinking, isn't that right?

JS357: Answer the question "Why is torturing a baby for fun always wrong" with objectively true facts.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
I would say it is a brute fact.

By "brute fact", you mean it is "a fact that has no explanation"?

Originally posted by @fmf
It was one of your style of 'thought exercises'.

Quote a question of mine that you think was loaded.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Quote a question of mine that you think was loaded.

No. Assuming your god figure revealed to you his wish that you carry out a genocide, like he supposedly did with the Hebrews, would you believe that that genocide was objectively morally sound?

Originally posted by @fmf
But don't you believe any action carried out or sanctioned by your god figure - like genocide for example - can be morally sound, so something like genocide is not "always wrong" to your way of thinking, isn't that right?

Genocide is the indiscriminate killing of a particular nation or ethnic group.

I don't think God kills indiscriminately so I don't think that God sanctions 'genocide'.

Originally posted by @fmf
By "brute fact", you mean it is "a fact that has no explanation"?

I mean "a thing that is undeniably the case."

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Genocide is the indiscriminate killing of a particular nation or ethnic group.

I don't think God kills indiscriminately so I don't think that God sanctions 'genocide'.

Would you participate in the killing of a particular nation or ethnic group, and believe it to be objectively morally sound, if you believed your god figure had told you to do it.

Originally posted by @fmf
No. Assuming your god figure revealed to you his wish that you carry out a genocide, like he supposedly did with the Hebrews, would you believe that that genocide was objectively morally sound?

So instead of providing an example of a loaded question that I have asked, you instead ask another one. As I said, I'm not interested.