Indeed. Your claim that morality is objective. Your burden of proof.
You made the claim that morality is subjective. I simply pointed out the logical problems of your claim.
It isn't important to you. Just as your morality isn't important to me. What is important are your actions, not what you feel about them.
If you can't say whether or not my actions are moral, then why are they important?
Why should what I think about morality be important to anyone but myself. What you think about it certainly isn't.
Then why did you bring it up?
Anybody who thinks the Nazis were not right wing fascists is delusional.
I can only tell you what the history says. They literally called themselves socialists and enacted socialist policies.
Presumably you think that right wing fascists are the good guys, do all the baddies in history must be socialists.
Ah, yes, the old moronic "You disagree with me so you're a fascist" nonsense.
Of course not. Subjective morality isn't foundation less.
Then what is the foundation?
The reason we think they were wrong is because their actions are outside what the vast majority of people consider to be moral. No objective standard is required, which is as well, as there is no evidence that one exists.
Yes, that's precisely my point. You only believe it to be immoral because a majority of people have decided it to be immoral. That's the very definition of subjective.
An ad populem fallacy still doesn't explain what makes it wrong or why the opinions of those who believe it to be immoral are greater than those who believe it to be moral.
Some atheists do hold to an objective morality.
Then tell us what it is.
The only thing that all atheists agree on is that they lack belief in God.
Actually, that's agnosticism, not atheism.
Atheism is not merely a lack of belief in God, but the belief that there is NO God. A=without. Theos=God.
Many atheists state that they have an object moral standard. I am not one of them, but to say that atheists have no objective moral standard is false.
Then tell us what it is.