Does Atheism Lead to Nihilism?

[SteveII]

God's nature is The Good (as the greatest conceivable being) and those properties simply determine what goodness is. So if God = The Good, to restate the dilemma would “Is The Good, good because it creates The Good or because it recognizes The Good?” Well, neither one – The Good is good because it is The Good. It does not make sense to ask this further--to keep pushing it back.

So, first of all, nuh uh. Not gonna happen. I'm not going to let you get away with ending your argument by just defining god to be good by fiat assertion, that's an absolutely lazy, bullshit excuse for an argument and I'm not having it. You can't just say "god is good because god is good and that's that," that's a tautology, a circular argument that I can't believe you would actually think someone would take seriously. The question: is "The Good" good because god says it is, or because it conforms to a prior notion of goodness? is still one that requires answering, and if you don't want to answer it, if you seriously want to hitch your wagon to the utterly insulting circular argument you've made here, then my morals are objective because they are objective, and it doesn't make sense to ask further questions. That gets us nowhere, Steve, and the sad thing is that you started us down this path because simple, reasonable answers weren't enough for you.

But then, the double standard is also on full display here now too, I've noticed. See, when we make recourse to axioms- please note that I never did, I was able to provide an actual decent reason for the basis of my morality that didn't rest on an axiomatic statement... that you then dismissed outright for no reason- you say that's not good enough, not objective enough in comparison with your god. But when you're pushed into a corner regarding your god, you respond with a fucking axiomatic statement. So it's okay when you do it, but not when we do it?

This is the problem, the huge glaring flaw at the heart of what you're doing here: you're privileging your own position for no good goddamn reason, and dismissing whatever else we say because it doesn't match up to the undemonstrated, largely imagined authority you've imbued into your argument. You don't have any evidence that what you're saying is true, you don't even have any better justification, as you've just demonstrated by relying on a circular, fiat axiom as your ultimate answer, but because you've decided that your god answer gets this special, mystical authority that nobody else can have, therefore it's superior. Well, until you stop assuming your answer is better because magic, nobody else has to take that seriously. You don't just get to invent this special "The Good," as a catch all panacea for the obvious problems in your argument and then stop talking.

Okay, so if I ask: “Is your evolved sensibilities (or however you want to phrase it) good because it creates morality or because it recognizes morality?" How do you stop the infinite regress? You need a stopping point where it no longer makes any sense to ask whether something creates ultimate morality or recognizes ultimate morality. God is a very plausible stopping point. What is the atheist's?

I find it interesting you will criticize belief in God but you wont allow for the standard definition of God: He is ontologically, metaphysically ultimate. To describe God's nature as the greatest good is not inconsistent nor a double standard nor fiat axiomatic statement from the blue. The Jews believed this before Plato ever lived.

Regarding "privileging your own position for no good goddamn reason", I cannot prove God exists any more than you can prove he doesn't. So in a discussion on divergent views of reality, you can expect that my beliefs will contain references to God and I will expect your will not.