Atheism and morality

[simplexity]

You didn't read what I said, did you? I said that you tried to eat your cake and have it. You quoted numbers and then you said 'of course, the numbers don't count'. THat's like a newspaper printing pictures of a nude woman and saying 'isn't it outrageous that our rival newspapers printed this dirty picture'. You wanted the numbers to be seen as counting for something, while not being guilty of the fallacy of thinking the numbers count. YOu are guilty of what Sartre would call 'bad faith'.

I detect the same 'bad faith' in the rest of what you say. Why don't you just tell me about these supposed flaws in my kind of position and we'll see if they really are flaws. Or perhaps you'd prefer just to tell me that lots of eminent people think there are huge flaws and leave it at that.

You point out that there are rival metaethical views. I then explain that I think they are all false and briefly explain what kind of problems I think attend to each. You then point out that this doesn't matter as what matters is whether there's a fault in my view. Er, wrong. it does matter as if there is a rival view that can account for morality's features as well or better than my own then clearly it should be preferred. So showing that each rival view has serious flaws is significant. That clearly does not, in and of itself, show my view to be correct and I have never, ever suggested that it does. Indeed, it is you who just keeps implying such things by informing me (as if I was unaware) that there are rival views and that these rival views have lots of defenders. I know!

Now, kindly point to one of these supposed flaws in my kind of view. Don't just tell me that someone thinks there's a flaw. Tell me what it is and explain just why it is a flaw, and we'll see if it is. For I am eager to have the flaws in my view highlighted as it is not a view I wish to be true.

Just to be clear: my view is that moral instructions are the instructions of a god who has total control over our interests in an afterlife. In claiming this I do not claim that the god exists. Merely that the god would need to exist if our moral sense data and moral beliefs are to have anything answering to them in reality.

What's the problem?

In reality, at least most peoples, it has already been explained to you multiple times how moral sense data can have something answering to it, without even an agent(external to ourselves) answering it. We ourselves are answering to this moral sense data as you put it. Multiple times this has been put forward and explained in detail, then since apparently you like to talk so much, you simply redefine what the word reality means so you can continue the argument. Or you simply systematically avoid answering, which has been done multiple times. That is what this entire thread is. Someone making a valid argument disproving your entire argument. You almost have a system of illogical steps.

1) Valid Argument disproving morality needs a god
2) According to my definition of morality your argument doesn't work(which it actually does)
3)more assertions...
4) Another valid argument disproving your view
5) According to my definition of reality, what is answering moral sense data is not actually real enough for me. As we all know abstract things are very real.
6)others feel free to add on to these steps...

We are answering to/inferring instructions(it contains instructions) from the moral sense data in this manner:
1)We are self aware
2)Self aware beings do not wish to suffer
3)We also suffer if anything else suffers
3)Because we do not wish to suffer anything which causes suffering is immoral, and this is the starting point for morality(belief system)
4)Not suffering is also inescapably reasonable(see above)

All these things are very real and based on fact

The moral sense data could be any of these things:
1)Karmic law
2)Neuronal emotional feelings which actually fits into karmic law
3)instincts and desires(which ties into number 2)
3)Natural Law(which does not necessarily need a god for its creation)

It could not be:
1)A gods commands/instructions because nothing is necessarily suffering and therefore these gods commands are not necessarily moral, in other words: euthypro's dilema
2)You are free to think of others...