Crazy idea, what if arguing Objective and Subjective Moralities against each other is a false paradigm? Can't human beings have an opinion informed by both Objectivity and Subjectivity?
I'd say most opinions are probably informed by both objective and subjective materials, but we're not talking about "opinions".
The question is, does objective morality exist? That is to say, if the Nazi's won WWII, and they killed or brainwashed anyone who disagreed with them, would it be morally wrong to exterminate Jews? If objective morality exists, that answer would be "no", even if no one in the world agreed with it. If you and Qbert are right and objective morality doesn't exist, then a world where the Nazi's won and killed or brainwashed everyone would be a world where killing jews was not just "not bad", it would actually be "good". Slaughtering an entire segment of humanity would be considered the "RIGHT", "GOOD", "PROPER" thing to do. You'd live in a world where you "OUGHT" to slaughter Jews.
Sound insane? Well, that's what atheism means. That's what subjective morality means. It's logically inescapable.
So this isn't really a discussion about epistemology of opinions.
Also, I think Flynn has shown a dislike for Strawmen, but at the same time eagerly describes other people's beliefs for them when arguing. I see no basis for describing Qbert's view of life being meaningless.
It's reason. It's logic.
1. If there is no God, then objective morality doesn't exist.
2. If there's no God, then there's no objective meaning to life.
3. If there's no God, then all of humanity is doomed to the eventual heat death of the universe. All life (in fact) will eventually die out in the heat death of the universe.
That logically, and inescapably means that on the atheistic view, there's no objective meaning to life. You may think of your little hobbies, and your temporal relationships as something of personal value to you (on a merely subjective level), but objectively, there's no meaning. All of life, all of the universe, and everything in it is pointless.
It also logically, and inescapably means that (on atheism) there's no "oughts", no moral "rights", no moral "wrongs", only social differences between evolved primates which are of no more objective value than specs of dust.
Many atheists don't think through the logical conclusions of their own world view, but top atheistic supports of our day and of previous generations understood this. Friedrich Nietzsche understood this in his pioneering work.
Without God, nihilism is almost certainly true and inescapable.
I think this is overreaching. Or informing Qbert that he is indifferent to child suffering.
I never said Qbert was indifferent to child suffering. I said that without objective morality, Qbert's view of child suffering has no more objective value or legitimacy than a crazed pedophile who gets off on molesting and torturing children. Qbert may find child suffering "unappealing", but he cannot claim it's "wrong". He self-proclaims that there is no objective morality... that means that taste in morality is no different than taste in foods; some people like chocolate ice cream, some like vanilla... but it's not "better" to prefer vanilla over chocolate. It's just "different".
So Qbert may prefer children not to suffer, but if someone was torturing a child, that person may be breaking the law and acting in a taboo way socially, but he's doing nothing objectively "Wrong", and Qbert could never tell him otherwise.
The theist is just in a better position. The theist can say, "yeah - it's wrong to do that".
So let me ask you... do you think anything is truly "wrong", or truly "right" (morally speaking)? Do you think sticking red-hot needles into a babies eyes for fun is "wrong"?
If you do, then you should consider theism... because without a God, as Qbert rightfully places his faith, there is no objective morality.
