Atheism and morality

[max-greece]

22 pages later, and nothing new.... typical theist...

First, I am not a theist as I do not believe in the theistic god (the all powerful, all knowing, perfectly good one). These arguments suggest morality requires the existence of a god, but not that one. (It is logically possible that morality requires the theistic god, but I think the evidence is against it).

Second, I am unclear by what 'nothing new' means or its relevance. If you mean that after 22 pages nobody has said anything to show my original arguments to be faulty, then you are correct. But this is surprising and interesting, is it not? The problem is you atheists get an easy time most of the time - for most of the time your opponents are idiots defending idiotic positions using idiotic arguments. This gives you false confidence in the credibility of your view. But in fact there are very good arguments against it. You won't hear them very often, but they exist. Most of the time all you'll hear are very incompetent versions of those arguments. So, you'll hear terrible versions of the moral argument for god. You won't hear good versions. And then you think 'ah, well the moral argument for god is rubbish'. And yes, there are lots and lots of rubbish moral arguments for god. For there are lots of idiots out there trying to defend religious worldviews, hobbled both by their own idiocy and by their religious commitments into making poor arguments.

But I haven't done that. What I've done is present what seems to me to be a good version of the moral argument. Or at least, a version that standard objections fail to touch.

Obviously that's a pain in the arse if you're heavily invested in atheism being true. Oh well. Deal.

---

As I've pointed out - your conclusions is wrong. Morality is not an agent and that won't be the case no matter how many times you repeat it. Agency is an attribute of a conscious being and morality - being just a concept - does not qualify.

All you have to do is challenge one of my premises. 'Challenge' doesn't mean 'deny'. It means presenting some evidence that one of my premises is false.

Saying 'morality is a concept' is either banal or confused. it is banal if you mean that we have a concept of morality. I know. OUr concept of morality tells us what it would take for morality to exist, just as our concept of a unicorn tells us what it would take for a unicorn to exist, etc. If you do not mean this - if you mean morality just is a concept rather than something we have a conception of, then what you're saying is nonsensical.

anyway, challenge a premise. if your challenge holds up you earn the right to deny my conclusion. Otherwise you don't.

You are as delusional as any theist I have ever met. Your theory has had innumerable holes blown through it but you simply don't recognise the fact.