Toaster strudel alliance takes on drugs, atheists and liberalism

[downbeatplumb]

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

All atheists agree that they don't believe in god

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

Societies impart morals and ethics much more effectively than religions. If you followed all the rules in the bible then you would be a monster.

6. Ethical statements are incommensurable for atheists (MP 6,7)

The athiests on this site seem to contradict this by being quite ethical by the standards of the society in which they live. You statement is false.

7. If ethical statements are incommensurable, they cannot have a ground higher than them-self

You build on your false premise, building your little strawman.

8. Ethical statements between atheists cannot have a higher ground than them-self (MP 6,7)

It gets bigger.

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)

Can you see where this is going kids.

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)

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

You are talking bollocks your argument makes false assertions presents them as fact. Atheists exist in societies that follow their own moral and ethical code. the society of today has moved on from the "religious" morals and ethics and in europe at least left them largely behind and is better for it. It is not rocket science to work out what is the moral thing to do it is either the one that does least harm or most good depending on the circumstance.

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.

You do blather on rather don't you. You always go to the soviets for your view on atheism but you would be better off looking at countries that are secular in practice that are not ruled by a mad dictator at the time. Englands laws are overwhelmingly secular and at least try to be moral and ethical.

[/quote]

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.

"power is necessary to restrain evil" it isn't necessary to restrain me. I'm quite easy going and overall rather nice. I could probably say the same about most people.
I would suggest that most people desire peace stability and to get along with others and to do this they would automatically be ethical. Its part of being a social animal.