Atheism and morality

[simplexity]

I know what you said. I corrected myself.
I know. Just keep repeating yourself. Blah. Yes, a we have a concept of a unicorn. Never said it was a concept itself, just that we have concepts of things that don't exist.
There actually are things answering too it, which many others including myself have explained earlier, and you systematically avoided answering.

So you now see the difference between a concept and the thing conceived? YOu see that having a concept of a thing does not entail that the thing is a concept? YOu see that we have a concept of a unicorn but that it doesn't follow that unicorns exist? You now see that we have a concept of morality but that it doesn't follow that morality exists?

Good, well done. You're coming along splendidly.
But then you assert that there is something answering to our concept of morality. Well, what? And remember, don't say a concept. If you say a concept then you've undone all that splendid work above.

Umm... What? Already understood all of that way before this thread or in fact before I joined this forum. I think you are confusing me with someone else. No, having a concept of a thing does not entail the thing is a concept, but until there is actual evidence otherwise, the thing is the set of coding in the mind relating to the notions of suffering(right and wrong). Or it is external 'software' acting on our minds, also relating to the notion of suffering and strength. And there is no reason without the evidence to believe otherwise. This software or coding in the mind would be what your morality is as you define it(instructions, not inescapable, but subjective), even though morality even as defined normally is only a combination of ideas(or a concept). Just because it's not always true does not mean one can not have a concept of a concept.

There needs to be no external intelligence involved in the matter of morality, although there could be, but it is not necessary.

'Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong).'

Morality as defined above, does exist. We have a concept of a set of ideas. That is all. If you want to define morality differently(as inescapable instructions of 'right' and 'wrong') you can do it as many times as you wish and it will get you nowhere. And I have no problem admitting morality, as defined that way, does not exist. Because that definition is completely non-nonsensical as already reasoned out beforehand. Right and wrong from the evidence is not always the same and they themselves are based off a set of ideas/coding stemming from ourselves. This is where the evidence points.

I haven't asserted anything. Now there is another problem. You are now trying to reconcile yourself by changing words and using the word 'answering'. There are plenty of ideas stemming from the coding of the mind that constitute what we regard as morality and it has already been explained countless times in this thread. And of course you have failed to respond to those specific posts.