Atheism and morality

[Esquilax]

Deflection and forced/percieved equivalence Esq....that's what's been accomplished...lol.

I was being charitable and assuming that wasn't where Fr0d0 was going to take this. I'll be on the debate train as soon as he elaborates down that fraught little path.

[Inigo]

Labels don't matter. Label any position anything you want. All that matters is what arguments can be mustered for it.

You don't solve complicated philosophical matters by getting a dictionary! None of this matters.

[Simon Moon]

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.

[paulpablo]

Labels don't matter. Label any position anything you want. All that matters is what arguments can be mustered for it.

You don't solve complicated philosophical matters by getting a dictionary! None of this matters.

You are labeling morality as instructions which are inescapably reasonable to follow, my point is that you have no proof that any instruction is inescapable to follow, you don't know which instructions are inescapable to follow.

[genkaus]

My point was that morality isn't an actual thing you can touch or see, according to you they are made out instructions everyone has reason to comply with whatever their interests. the only person who could make these instructions would have to be powerful.

No. I am saying that real moral instructions would have to be the instructions of a powerful supernatural agent of some kind because this is what it would take for there to exist instructions with which everyone has reason to comply whatever their interests.

so to arrive at this conclusion I can only think that you either....

1 you researched the different definitions of morality, read about normative morality and how everyone has a reason to comply with them.

2 You feel you and others are receiving these instructions.


I can't think of a 3rd way

The first one makes no sense because this still doesn't prove that any instructions exist that are rationally inescapable, you don't know for sure of any that exist as you have said yourself

And the truthful answer is that I do not know exactly what morality instructs us to do.

So you don't know which instructions are inescapable, how do you know any of them are?

The second one is no reason to believe god exists either, you feel and sense things are right or wrong, most people do, except you seem to just have this feeling that your sense of right and wrong are instructions from god.

The third way would be this:

Ignore all definitions of morality, declare that moral instructions mean, by definition, that they externally instructed and are rationally inescapable, then claim- untruthfully - that this is what all moral philosophers of the past are talking about when they talk about morality and then say that there is no point in discussing it with anyone who does not use this particular definition of morality.

---

Right. So the second part of your statement is incorrect then

"this would still be wrong. It would just re-classify all philosophies - including atheistic ones - as being religions."

Nope. By 'this' I mean the statement "there is no atheism". I'm saying that even if you re-classify all philosophies as religions, atheism would still be around.

[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.

[genkaus]

Labels don't matter. Label any position anything you want. All that matters is what arguments can be mustered for it.

Labels do matter. They are how you communicate which ideas and concepts you are talking and arguing about. Otherwise you'd have to keep repeating the entire description over and over again.

Here, for example, you've been incorrectly using the label of 'morality' for your unusual concept - a label already in use for something else, similar enough to confuse everyone and different enough to mean completely different things. Ans so we have 48 pages of discussion of people telling you how and why you are wrong and you repeating that you are right by definition. If you had started the thread by saying that atheism is incompatible with your gmorality - I don't think anyone would have argued against you.

You don't solve complicated philosophical matters by getting a dictionary! None of this matters.

If you can solve a complicated philosophical matter by a simple reference to the dictionary - well, why wouldn't you?

[Inigo]

Labels don't matter. Label any position anything you want. All that matters is what arguments can be mustered for it.

Labels do matter. They are how you communicate which ideas and concepts you are talking and arguing about. Otherwise you'd have to keep repeating the entire description over and over again.

Here, for example, you've been incorrectly using the label of 'morality' for your unusual concept - a label already in use for something else, similar enough to confuse everyone and different enough to mean completely different things. Ans so we have 48 pages of discussion of people telling you how and why you are wrong and you repeating that you are right by definition. If you had started the thread by saying that atheism is incompatible with your gmorality - I don't think anyone would have argued against you.

You don't solve complicated philosophical matters by getting a dictionary! None of this matters.

If you can solve a complicated philosophical matter by a simple reference to the dictionary - well, why wouldn't you?

If I say that by 'morality' I am referring to instructions and favourings that have inescapable rational authority you know what I mean by the term 'morality' don't you? If you mean something else by the term, great! But I mean what I've just told you I mean. I don't care what YOU mean by it. If you don't have the concept, you don't have the concept.

I am then analysing the concept and showing that it presupposes a god.

Here is an analogy. I am taking something - say, some strawberry jam - and I am trying to figure out what it is in by analysing it.

If you come along and say 'your analysis is rubbish. Marmalade contains oranges' my reply will be 'so? I am analysing strawberry jam. go away!'.

Now, if you have a problem with my concept you can just go away. I'm not interested in debating with people who don't have the relevant concept. What's the point? they're just be talking past me.

[paulpablo]

another way of looking at it would be that you are assuming instructions which have inescapable consequences exist which would require a supernatural being.
I have come along and said but they might not exist and you don't know which instructions are inescapable and have no proof that they are inescapable, and you have focused all your attention onto one specific definition of what morality is.

[Bad Writer]

You think you can refute an argument with a head count do you?

I only gave you Kudos because of this astute observation.