Atheism and morality

[Inigo]

I've never seen a claim that God exists. Care to point me to one?

(Mine and other theists claim of belief in God of course attracts no burden. So your atheism seems to be groundless)

Okay, unless you're referring to in this thread only, and you've managed to memorize hundreds of posts, you're lying when you say you've never encoumtered the claim that 'God exists'. I mean hell, one could just as easily plop open the Bible and find a verse clearly stating that God exists, such as when Paul refers to "God's glory and power have been clearly seen, so that they are without excuse" [for not believing].

I would claim that a god exists. However, my argument that morality requires a god does not, in itself, establish the existence of a god. It is part of a larger case.
If morality requires a god, then morality - our moral sense data - becomes defeasible evidence for a god. In the same way that if you are wondering if there is any celery in your cupboard and you find that there does seem to be a jar of marmite in your cupboard, and that marmite is made, in part, of celery you have just discovered that there is indeed some celery in your cupboard (even if you didn't notice it at first because it was in the form of marmite).

Now, most of you atheists implicitly recognise the importance of reconciling the reality of morality with your worldview. For you recognise, at some inchoate poorly thought-out level, that unless you can do this your worldview has a serious deficiency. Something that appears very real, has to be considered a hallucination. This damages the credibility of the view. It damages it because to most of us morality appears more real than the reports of our sense of touch and sight (after all, it is conceivable that those are just hallucinations - it is conceivable, very conceivable, that I am dreaming right now). Yet it is far harder to conceive that there is nothing right or wrong with anything. That's precisely why the moral argument for a god's existence has real teeth and precisely why most of you feel it so important to deny what I am saying. it is why philoosphers are currently furiously working away at trying to show that morality is compatible with atheism (and failing - just take a look at their bonkers theories).

---

The part of my post to which you responded was directed at fr0d0, not you.

Oh, oops.

---

Isn't the consistent diff between d and t gods that the t gods are personal wheras the d gods are not? Creator, omni-whatever, those would be down to the particular d or t god.

For example, many native american "gods" where definitely -not- omnipotent, -not- omniscienct, -not- pefrectly morally good (often quite the opposite or some blurring).....but they were definitely "t" gods though, as their interactions and personal interests in the affairs of men or particular men form the backdrop for their entire religious narrative and experience (including rituals rites and offerings).

Obviously, whatever you define to be a god is whatever would constitute a god for you, but in reverse fashion, Frodo, for example, could tally up all the ancillary attributes and the sum would not be "Yahweh". It's "Yaweh" first, then tally it up. No amounting of checking tally boxes makes one a christian - unless the "christ" box is tallied explicitly. Similarly, d and t gods may have long lists of disparate (or commensurate) ancillary attributes but the diff between the two seems to be an issue of just one box in that list.

Surely we would refer to as 'a god' any incredibly powerful supernatural agent of some kind? That's how I use the term. They do not have to be 'all' powerful. Just very powerful. They can't be non-agential. A supernatural chair is not a god. They have to be minded.

Anyway, that's why I say morality requires a god. It requires someone like that. An agent with a huge amount of power over us. I think it is in accordance with common usage to refer to such a being as a 'god'. I think we would not hesitate to do so if we came to believe one existed.

Unfortunately the term 'god' has become hijacked by the Judaeo Christian tradition to such an extent that if you use the term it is now commonplace to assume that you mean the Judaeo Christian one. This is a problem given that the case for the existence of THAT god is really quite poor and people think that if one can show that god not to exist - and I think there is excellent evidence against the existence of such a being - then atheism is true. And thus good arguments are overlooked. For instance, the moral argument for 'a god' is very powerful. The moral argument for the Christian god is weak, however. And so on. More damage has been done to belief in god by the Judaeo Christian tradition, and their focus on 'faith' over 'reason' than by any other. they are, if you like, a god-send to atheism. They champion 'faith' because they know that 'reason' will destroy them and so must insulate their belief system against it, by admitting it as a guest only who can be instantly ejected should they start causing any trouble (but embraced should their company be found congenial). Belief in god then becomes associated with a kind of non-thinking. With dogmatism. With narrow mindedness. Atheism becomes associated with reason, clear thinking and so on. But another possibility is consistently overlooked. Namely, that reason may support belief in god, but not THAT god. But anyone who runs such arguments will find themselves on their own. Bugger.

---

The part of my post to which you responded was directed at fr0d0, not you.

Though, I see no reason why morality should directly require a god. It's a non-sequitor.

I refer you to my arguments in which the existence of a god arrives as a conclusion to a deductively valid argument. That's the precise opposite of a non-sequitur.