Atheism and morality

[paulpablo]

Moral values are shaped through time and have evolved out of 2000 years of human civilisation and learning.
So the agent that gave humanity it`s moral values is humanity itself and it is wrong to thing of moral values and codes of social conduct as something unshakeable and strickt.
They evolve and change and are the result of human learning.

So there is no god needed.

Actualy, arguing that a god gave us our moral values is somewhat insulting because it demands the precondition that mankind is to incompetent to create his own moral set of rules.
Other than that, if you look arround the globe you will see that what is moraly correct is perceived differently in different cultures - which means that there is no such thing as a international code of morals - hence making devine creation of such even more impossible.

Well done for totally ignoring the arguments. I keep doing this, but I'll do it again in the vain hope that someone might be capable of grasping the point.

MOral sensations and beliefs are not morality. They are moral sensations and beliefs. Belief in father Christmas isn't father Christmas. Belief in god isn't god. You can't show father Christmas to exist by showing that beliefs in father Christmas exist, can you?
Similarly, you can't show god to exist by showing beliefs in god to exist. Why? Because father Christmas is not a belief. He's a fat guy who delivers presents on Christmas eve. He doesn't exist. Beliefs in him do. He doesn't. So father Christmas phenomena exists. Father Christmas doesn't. This is painfully simple stuff. Try and grasp it.(you won't, of course, because it doesn't serve your interests to).

Now moral beliefs and sensations definitely exsit and they exist even if there isn't a god. But morality isn't a sensation or a belief. It is the thing sensed, the thing believed. That doesn't mean it exists, but to exist it is not enough that moral sensations and beliefs exist. Indeed morality could exist without those things.

Morality is something that instructs and those instructions are instructions that confer reason for compliance. Those are conceptual claims about morality. Not mine, widely attested to. By all means dispute them if you wish. You can block my argument by doing so. But if it is true that morality has - and must have - those features, then there is only one thing morality can be, and that is the instructions of a god. Or so I am arguing. That doesn't mean such a god exists. It means one would need to if our moral sensations and beleifs are to have something answering to them. Why can't you grasp this painfully simple point?

So why would these instructions need to come from a god, if you want to call them instructions.