Atheism and morality

[Inigo]

I am arguing first, that morality requires a god.

I would THEN argue that this argument is a good one:

1. Morality requires a god
2. Morality exists
3. A god exists.

That argument has as its first premise the conclusion of the previous argument. So, to block the conclusion of this argument you must either show that morality does not require a god (which would require refuting my previous arguments) or arguing that premise 2 is false.

Your syllogism is fallacious.

You are guilty of 'affirming the consequent'. You are smuggling in your conclusion in your first premise.

Note, however, that premise 1 is consistent with atheism. For an atheist could run this argument.

1. Morality requires a god
2. no god exists
3. Morality does not exist

This argument is equally fallacious.

Even if your syllogisms were not fallacious, I reject your premise. Morality exists AND does not require a god.

The arguments are deductively valid.

'morality requires a god' is synonymous with

'if morality exists, a god exists'.

So, the first argument affirms the antecedent. It does not affirm the consequent.
The second argument denies the consequent.

If you think these are fallacious inferences there's no hope for you.