Atheism and morality

[Inigo]

Prove it. Prove afterlife and that onlythe instructions of a supernatural agent could possibly confer the necessary reasons.

? First, what I am arguing is that there would need to be an afterlife for moral instructions to exist. That's a conditional. I'm not saying 'there is an afterlife'. I am saying 'there would need to be if these sensations are to have anything that vindicates them'. If I am correct about that then our moral sensations are sensations 'of' the instructions of an agent who has control over our interests in an afterlife. And therefore those sensations would be defeasible evidence of such a person and a place. Note 'defeasible'. It isn't proof anymore than your visual impression that there is a computer monitor in front of you is 'proof' of such a thing.

---

No, it is better to use 'Xing' as if one mentions a real case someone will dispute the normative issue of the rightness/wrongness of abortion rather than focussing on what the fact of disagreement tells us about our concept of morality.

I am entirely unclear how you arrive at the view that the role of the god is just to highlight that it is a moral issue. This is clearly not what my view is. A god's instructions determine the rightness or wrongness of a deed as wrongness in an action just consists in the fact it is an act a god instructs us not to perform. Moral disagreement is simply disagreement about what, exactly, morality instructs us to do.

Now that I did not get. You are now arguing for an absolute morality which I reject out of hand. There is not, nor can there be, an absolute fixed morality for the ages. Morality moves. God's morality is useless. Nothing remains morally fixed. No moral position can be taken, ever, that should not be contradicted by a morally sustainable position under certain circumstances.

We then get to the further problem of God's communication with us. Even if God could hold a perfect moral position at all times if he/she/they cannot communicate that to us in an unambiguous way, consistently, then they may as well not exist for all the use they are.

Fortunately - he/she/it/they are not there. Problem solved.

I am entirely unclear how you arrive at these conclusions. I say something. Then you attribute to me a view quite different to any I have argued for. At what point have I asserted that morality is fixed over time?

I do not know what you mean by 'absolute' morality.

I have made clear what I understand by 'morality'. MOrality instructs and those instructions have inescapable rational authority.