Does Atheism Lead to Nihilism?

[SteveII]

Steve: are you now trying to say atheists get their morals from God?

If God sets what is moral and what is not, then it is subjective to him. It is then of no guarantee that it will actually have anything to do with our wellbeing.

The Judeo-christian position is that we (all of us) are created in the image of God and that (among other things) is where our sense of morality comes from.

God, being the greatest conceivable being is necessarily good. Because being the ultimate good (his very character defines it) is greater than merely reflecting a set of subjective moral concepts attempting to define good. So as you move backwards that is the explanatory stopping point for morality--contrasted against the naturalist perspective which gives no (or arbitrary) explanatory stopping point (and therefore subjective).

[Neo-Scholastic]

God, being the greatest conceivable being is necessarily good.

I agree with you, but there's a little more to it. The atheists) won't acknowledge the problem because they are stuck on stupid with their irrational adherence to nominalism.

[Esquilax]

So... nobody has an answer to the very obvious fact that god's opinions on morality as just as subjective as any other? Or the Euthyphro Dilemma?

Y'all just okay with assuming your conclusion?

[SteveII]

So is god's nature good because he says so, or because it conforms to moral goodness? The Euthyphro Dilemma remains unanswered, and it destroys everything you've said here, Steve.

"Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?"

The Euthyphro dilemma is a false dilemma because there is a third option. When you are talking about the nature of God you are talking about his essential properties (the greatest conceivable being). God neither conforms to nor invents the moral order. Rather His very nature is the standard for good.

[Mister Agenda]

God, being the greatest conceivable being is necessarily good.

I agree with you, but there's a little more to it. The atheists) won't acknowledge the problem because they are stuck on stupid with their irrational adherence to nominalism.

And our irrational resistance to the idea that you can define something into existence.

[Mudhammam]

Well this should make things really simple for Steve. There is no difference between his usage of good and God. He uses them both without having any knowledge of what they mean. So all he has to do is imagine that when atheists talk about "the good," they mean his idea of God (well maybe not HIS idea) but something that only exists hypothetically, or as an ideal, not that actually exists as a real entity outside of one's conception.

[GrandizerII]

God, being the greatest conceivable being is necessarily good.

God, being the greatest conceivable being is necessarily non-existent. For someone maximally great in power, knowledge, and presence is not logically coherent due to the logical problems that arise from these attributes. There's also the logical problem of having to be the greatest in everything in order to be the greatest conceivable being. This means greatest in existence and in non-existence, greatest in feminine beauty and greatest in inducing disgust, greatest in providing sexual pleasure and greatest in experiencing sexual pleasure, etc.

Notice how my first statement is contradicted by the rest of my argument? That's exactly because such a being defies all logic.

[robvalue]

Steve: If god's nature is the standard for good, then you really are fucked. Have you read the bible?

[Thumpalumpacus]

The statement has been made that any morality from God is also subjective. From your favorite Christian philosopher WLC:

God's moral nature is expressed in relation to us in the form of divine commands which constitute our moral duties or obligations. Far from being arbitrary, these commands flow necessarily from His moral nature. In the Judaeo-Christian tradition, the whole moral duty of man can be summed up in the two great commandments: First, you shall love the Lord your God with all your strength and with all your soul and with all your heart and with all your mind, and, second, you shall love your neighbor as yourself. On this foundation we can affirm the objective goodness and rightness of love, generosity, self-sacrifice, and equality, and condemn as objectively evil and wrong selfishness, hatred, abuse, discrimination, and oppression.

So what? You still select the religious outlook that best suits your moral code.

If these attributes necessarily flow from the greatest conceivable being, they are not subjective.

Yes, they are, even if we accept for the sake of argument that huge "if". Assuming your premises for sake of argument, your "objective" morality is still the whim of a subject -- your god. Thge only thing you've done is moved the source of your morality to the ineffable, probably to gain access to rationalization by fiat -- "God said so, it must be so."

If we are made in the image of God (having some of the same attributes: soul, personhood, sentient, capable of love, having free will, moral, etc.), we have within us an objective framework for moral values and duties.

Not so, for the same things your god forbids us as evil, he himself practices, according to his holy book. That in itself is proof that the Christian morality is subjective and relative as well. Additionally, the examples I presented earlier, of sectarian differences on moral issues, is real-world, no-Bible-bullshit-story evidence of the same.

Simply bleating over and over, "But you have to have god to be morally grounded" ignores those countervailing facts. you need to tighten up your argumentation, and remove this gaping hole.

Consequently, this is also the reason I don't think atheists go around killing people but rather explains why we feel we have intrinsic meaning, value and purpose; why we know what is right and wrong; why there is self-sacrifice; and why we feel there are such things as universal truths (what the "noble lie" otherwise provides).

I find your explanation utterly unconvincing, relying as it does on a completely undemonstrated being, and blithely ignoring the contraindications provided by, you know, reality.

[Faith No More]

"Greatest conceivable being"

At what level something become so poorly defined that we can just dismiss it outright?