Atheism and morality

[Inigo]

I predicted you'd do precisely this. I assume you were previously religious and miss having an authoritative book to appeal to. And so you've decided to replace the bible with a big fat report on how a population of fools use words. You worship that catalogue of idiots' grunts if you want, but I'm not a dictionarian.

Anyway, address my arguments or go boil your head.

This is just too much. 'Catalog of idiots grunts'. Use of 'dictionarian'. No, it's called using the English language properly so others know what you mean.

Anyway we have addressed your arguments in pretty much every way possible and you still fail to understand how concepts can very easily be of something nonexistent(ideas). Morality being one of them. And this concept of something non-existent is something very useful indeed. It's useful, not an inescapable instruction. Just some subtle hardcoded 'instructions' which are not always reasonable, especially inescapably.

you don't seem to have grasped my argument at all. Of course we can and do have concepts of things that do not exist.
We have a concept of morality. My point is that there would only be something answering to that concept if a god and an afterlife exists.

[Rahul]

you don't seem to have grasped my argument at all. Of course we can and do have concepts of things that do not exist.
We have a concept of morality. My point is that there would only be something answering to that concept if a god and an afterlife exists.

Your point fails. I don't really even see how you are getting there.

[Inigo]

you don't seem to have grasped my argument at all. Of course we can and do have concepts of things that do not exist.
We have a concept of morality. My point is that there would only be something answering to that concept if a god and an afterlife exists.

Your point fails. I don't really even see how you are getting there.

How do you know it fails then? You don't know how I got there, but you're sure my route was fallacious? How very odd. I wish I had the ability to know in advance that someone's point was false prior to even knowing what it was.

[simplexity]

you don't seem to have grasped my argument at all. Of course we can and do have concepts of things that do not exist.
We have a concept of morality. My point is that there would only be something answering to that concept if a god and an afterlife exists.

'If a god and an afterlife exists'. There you go. Now all you have to do is get rid of this silly preconception. I don't see why you need a god answering the concept, for something to be answering the concept. Many other things can 'answer' a concept.

[Rahul]

How do you know it fails then? You don't know how I got there, but you're sure my route was fallacious? How very odd. I wish I had the ability to know in advance that someone's point was false prior to even knowing what it was.

Because no one has shown how you got to that conclusion. You have tried to explain it to us for days, yet not a single person has been convinced.

So either your point utterly fails or you really suck at explaining it.

[Inigo]

you don't seem to have grasped my argument at all. Of course we can and do have concepts of things that do not exist.
We have a concept of morality. My point is that there would only be something answering to that concept if a god and an afterlife exists.

'If a god and an afterlife exists'. There you go. Now all you have to do is get rid of this silly preconception. I don't see why you need something to be answering us.

Answering to us? What are you on about? Have you taken a drug?

Answering to the concept. That's what I said.

Here's an example. We have the concept of a unicorn. But there isn't anything answering to it, so far as we can tell. Unicorns don't exist. We have the concept of one, but there aren't any out there.

So, all together now: we have the concept of a unicorn, but there is nothing answering to it. We have the concept of a unicorn, but there is nothing answering to it. We have the concept of a unicorn, but there is nothing answering to it. WE HAVE THE CONCEPT OF A UNICORN BUT THERE IS NOTHING ANSWERING TO IT. (I'm bellowing that last one right into your ear).

So, having the concept of a thing isn't the same as that thing existing.
A unicorn isn't a concept. It is something we have a concept of. We have the concept of a unicorn. But unicorns don't exist. (If a unicorn just was a concept then one would have to say unicorns exist, for we certainly have the concept of a unicorn). So it isn't a concept, is it? It is something we have a concept 'of'.

We have a concept of morality. But if atheism is true there is nothing answering to it.

[Angrboda]

I assume you were previously religious and miss having an authoritative book to appeal to. And so you've decided to replace the bible with a big fat report on how a population of fools use words.

Your assumption is incorrect.

Anyway, address my arguments or go boil your head.

There are other options, and I am pursuing one of them. But thank you for your kind suggestion.

[downbeatplumb]

We have the concept of a god but there is nothing answering to it, WE HAVE THE CONCEPT OF A GOD BUT THERE IS NOTHING ANSWERING TO IT.

Morality does exist but does not require a god despite what you think.

[Inigo]

How do you know it fails then? You don't know how I got there, but you're sure my route was fallacious? How very odd. I wish I had the ability to know in advance that someone's point was false prior to even knowing what it was.

Because no one has shown how you got to that conclusion. You have tried to explain it to us for days, yet not a single person has been convinced.

So either your point utterly fails or you really suck at explaining it.

How does that follow? What you're now saying is that either I have explained it badly, or I have explained it well and it fails.
But you admit that you don't understand how I have reached my conclusion. So if I have not explained it badly (one of the options you allow) how would it follow that my point fails? For if I have not explained it badly and you still don't understand how I reached it, then how can you be sure my point fails? Surely all you can be sure about is that you are not very good at understanding things!

The evidence that you are not very good at understanding things is growing with every post you make.

---

We have the concept of a god but there is nothing answering to it, WE HAVE THE CONCEPT OF A GOD BUT THERE IS NOTHING ANSWERING TO IT.

Morality does exist but does not require a god despite what you think.

Oh, okay then - thanks for that.

[simplexity]

'If a god and an afterlife exists'. There you go. Now all you have to do is get rid of this silly preconception. I don't see why you need something to be answering us.

See above.

Answering to us? What are you on about? Have you taken a drug?
Answering to the concept. That's what I said.

I know what you said. I corrected myself.

Here's an example. We have the concept of a unicorn. But there isn't anything answering to it, so far as we can tell. Unicorns don't exist. We have the concept of one, but there aren't any out there.

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.

We have a concept of morality. But if atheism is true there is nothing answering to it.

There actually are things answering too it, which many others including myself have explained earlier, and you systematically avoided answering.