Atheism and morality

[Inigo]

The first thing I'd say is that it is logically compatible with my view that the god in question is perfectly morally good. This would just mean that the god in question possesses the character traits that she instructs or favours others possessing and will punish for not possessing. For goodness in one's character, on this view, just is to possess character traits that are approved of by this god and that this god resolves to harm us for not possessing. So it is possible that the god required for morality is perfectly morally good.

---

However, I think there is strong evidence that the god in question is not perfectly morally good. This is because this god needs to be vengeful (her instructions won't have inescapable rational authority otherwise) and so the only way she could be perfectly morally good is if she approved of us being vengeful. So, if she is perfectly morally good we should expect to sense that vengefulness is a good character trait. Yet we do not. Or at least, I don't and I suspect others do not either. We sense, surely, that vengefulness is a vice, not a virtue. So, it seems - if our moral sense is to be believed - that the god does not favour us being vengeful. She is vengeful. But she does not favour us being. (She may not even favour herself being - she may just 'be' vengeful and not herself for it). And that is why I conclude that this god is not perfectly good. She does not possess all of the character traits she approves of us possessing.

---

I would suggest that you've just added a second and wholly conflicting definition of morality. If "morality" is an agent whose instructions are inescapably rationally compelling, then the only way that this god him or herself can be morally good or bad is if there is an agent above him or her whose instructions are inescapably rationally compelling. What exactly would this uber god hold over the lesser god? You seem to have replaced your prior conception with a set which includes moral consistency, the lack of hypocrisy, as a necessary moral standard; however, consistency is a property of value (and meaning) to beings who are subject to moral instructions or commandments, which your god is not.

By the way, please stop redefining words at whim simply because you cannot be bothered to be literate. A theist is someone who believes in a god. Period.

You sound young. Are you a college student?

No, I am not a college student.

I have not redefined anything. I said that a 'good' character trait on this view refers to the property of being something the god will harm us (us - not her) for failing to possess. Hence why we have inescapable reason to cultivate such character traits.
If she possesses those character traits then she possesses character traits that 'we' have inescapable reason to cultivate. In other words, she possesses 'good' character traits and is therefore morally good.

Stop telling me to use theism in a particular way when the way I am using it is historically accurate and perfectly acceptable. A 'theistic' god is taken by those who have been properly educated to mean a god who possesses the 3 attributes of omniscience, omnipotence and perfect moral goodness. And a 'theist' to those of us who know this, is someone who believes in the existence of such a god.

I really don't care one tiny weeny bit how you use the word. I'm telling you how I use it so that you understand what I mean. If you don't like it, deal with it.