Toaster strudel alliance takes on drugs, atheists and liberalism

[Darkstar]

I am arguing that atheist political philosophy is self defeating.

There's where you went wrong. There is no such thing as a definitive atheist political philosophy.

The crux of the argument is that atheist ethics are highly subjective and individual, that atheist approaches to ethics become incommensurable, meaning they cannot be compared, that when the condition of incommensurable is reached, there is no way to know whether atheist ethical beliefs are true or not and if there is no way to know if they are true, people do not have to obey them. There can be no culture that people are bound ethically to accept from atheism, and no law that can proceed, other than the law of the force of one will, as in the Soviet Union.

What makes religious ethics any different? They aren't individual, but they are still subjective. Only if one presupposes the existence of god do religious ethics have any authority in that matter. It isn't that atheists don't have a moral rulebook, but that no such book exists. This does not mean anything goes, though, and there are many logically defensible moral rules. There are just too many exceptions to those rules on a situation by situation basis that it ultimately comes down to using your best judgment.

4. The ground of atheism varies person to person with no common non-coincidental agreement

What was that atheist political philosophy you were talking about again? You just refuted it.

5. If the ground of ethics varies person to person with no common non-coincidental agreement, ethical statements are incommensurable

Non-sequiter. Isn't it possible that some people can simply be wrong? I bet Hitler wouldn't agree with you on ethics, does this makes ethics in and of itself null and void? It does not.

6. Ethical statements are incommensurable for atheists (MP 6,7)
7. If ethical statements are incommensurable, they cannot have a ground higher than them-self
8. Ethical statements between atheists cannot have a higher ground than them-self (MP 6,7)

Six is false because five is false. point eight also applies to theists, but you don't see it that way because you believe in god. So...would it apply to god then? He just gets morals from himself? Having morals from yourself does not instantly invalidate them and reduce them to mere opinions as you seem to think (unless they are logically indefensible, of course).

9. There must be a ground for the will to rule and ethical statements between atheists cannot have a higher ground then themselves
10. If ethical statements are incommensurable, there is no way to know whether they are true or not
11. There is no way to know whether atheist ethical statements are true or not (MP 5 entails 10a, 10)
12. If there is no way to know whether a statement is true or not and the statement cannot have a higher ground than itself, it lacks authority
13. Atheist ethical statements lack authority (MP (10 & 7,12)

Atheist ethical statements are not incommensurable. I can use reason to defend them. Also, what is this "authority" you speak of? I thought appeal to authority was a logical fallacy...

14. [Where governments are organized by atheists or politics is conducted by atheists ], if ethical statements do not have authority, people do not have to obey them
15. Where governments are organized by atheists or politics is conducted by atheists, people do not have to obey it (MP 14,13)

Same as previous response.

You are arguing that desire is a suitable ground for morality? Do you have any evidence for that? That is an extremely huge claim that goes contrary to what virtually every society in history has taught, that people are selfish, that they need to be governed, that power is necessary to restrain evil. Even the Communists had a Puritanical side.

Do you really think that is what it means? That he really would kill people if he felt like it? Thing is, if you actually want to literally kill people, you will probably toss aside an moral rules anyway. Humans are naturally averse to those inclinations, but obviously not immune. And...why do I care what comminists think? Do you still think we're all MArxists or something?

Please respond in a syllogism or some other form of logic, that will be much more interesting.

(* Basically, if you are nice to other people and respect their rights, society will flow a lot more smoothly. Kind of like the golden rule; you wouldn't want people to harm you or those you care about, so logic and empathy dictate that you don't harm others either)
1. In order for moral decisions to be legitimate, they must be logically defensible.
2.The concept of human rights is logically defensible.*
3. Therefore the concept of human rights is legitimate. (2, 3)
4. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.
5. Logical fallacies are by definition not logically defensible.
6. Any moral rule appealing to authority is not logically defensible (unless deemed legitimate in the abscence of such authority) (4, 5)
7. All Christian moral rules appeal to the authority of god in place of a logical argument
8. All Christian moral rules that are not independantly confimed to be logically defensible are illegitimate. (6,7)
9. Given the complexity of life and situational factors, developing moral rules that apply in all situations without exception is impossible
10. Christian moral rules are claimed to be absolute.
11. Absolute rules apply in all situations withot exception.
12. Christian moral rules are illegitimate on two counts unless independently logically defensible (8-11)