Atheism and morality

[Inigo]

No, the reverse is true. My belief that Xing is wrong contradicts your belief that Xing is right if and only if we are talking about the same morality. So, my belief that Xing is wrong is the belief that morality instructs us not to X. Your belief that Xing is right is the belief that morality instructs us to X. These beliefs contradict. But they are beliefs about one morality.
If my belief was that morality1 instructs us not to X, and your belief was that morality2 instructs us to X then our beliefs do not contradict.

So the one god gives different instructions to different people?

That is possible. But when we have a moral disagreement this is not how things seem. It seems to me - I sense- that Xing is wrong, not just for me but for you too. So, I think hurting someone for fun is wrong. I think it is wrong for me to do that, I think it is wrong for you to do that. Perhaps you think it is right. Well, if you think it is right for you to do it, then you and I disagree, don't we? We are disagreeing about what 'morality' (not moralities) wishes us to do. I think morality wishes you (and me) not to hurt others for fun. YOu think morality wishes you to hurt others for fun.

So, there is morality, not moralities. Morality presupposes a god, not gods.

---

Now, for there to be something answering to the concept there would (by definition) need to be some external instructions with which we have inescapable reason to comply.

The problem is we are the only things answering to the concept. You have no evidence to say otherwise. The concept is of our own making. The phenomena, evolution, and sensory inputs and outputs from our mind led us to the concept. Without us it would not exist. Who said there is an inescapable reason to comply? You? Oh, wow! Amazing argument. Our senses are not always reasonable and different people have different reactions to different events.

Then we label these reactions as moral based on what is relatively reasonable to the group at the time. There is no absolute there.

---

Evidence does not mean what you think it means, because you keep presenting word salad wrapped in squat.

I agree and it's making me very tired.

If I am correct in my analysis of morality then the deliverances of our moral sense - our moral sense data if you will - constitutes defeasible evidence for the existence of a god just as your sense of sight constitutes defeasible evidence of an external world.