Finally an atheist proper, with views and questions

[Lucian]

Relating this back to atheism, I do think the error theory can be useful when applied to Christian claims of “objective morality” regardless of how they define that.  

It's been my experience that christians don't tend to argue for an objective morality, at least not on the internet.  They argue for a subjective morality and call it objective since it's a gods.  The way I respond to "christian objective morality" is to argue for a genuinely objective morality.

I agree with that analysis of what is happening in most cases. I think that Swinburne would be a counter-example as I believe he argues that a moral fact would obtain in all possible worlds, even those that did not contain a god?


Have you read much on the modified euthythro dilemma? Roughly it departs from the argument about are gods commands good because he wills them, or is his will good because the commands are good (probably butchering that). The modified version says that even if they ground goodness in his nature, the argument still applies. Is his nature good because of his desires, or are his desires good because of his nature. See this paper by koons https://www.researchgate.net/publication..._Euthyphro