Does Atheism Lead to Nihilism?

[Thumpalumpacus]

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).

Translation: "I have a bald claim, bereft of evidence, that I am still trying to shop to skeptics."

---

God neither conforms to nor invents the moral order. Rather His very nature is the standard for good.

Judged by whose standards?

Another unsupported assertion. Color me surprised.

[Esquilax]

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.

You might notice that I tweaked the wording a little to specifically refer to god's nature, because when you appeal to god's nature you aren't actually answering the Euthyphro Dilemma at all, nor are you introducing a third option; you're just pushing the problem back one level.

Why is god's nature good? Is it good because god has deemed his nature to be so? Or is it good because it is a nature that conforms to some external notion of goodness?

Weird that I have to repeat myself like that. For that matter, how did you determine that god was good? If you're just going off of god saying that he's good, or that god gives you the understanding that he's good, then your reasoning is entirely circular.

[Mudhammam]

I can conceive there not being a being which cannot be conceived not to exist.

Check mate.

[Simon Moon]

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.

So, where did God get his nature from?

If he gave it to himself, why can't he change it? Isn't he omnipotent?

If he gave himself his own nature, morality is still subjective to whatever the nature he gave himself is at the moment.

If he got his nature from another source, he is just relaying morality from whatever that source is. So, he is not the author of morality.

You've just moved the Euthyphro dilemma back a step. You haven't actually answered it.

[robvalue]

I don't respect anyone else's authority to tell me what is and isn't moral. Certainly not someone assuming to speak on behalf of an undemonstrated magic being or reading from a story book. I'm happy for people to give me opinions, and I will take them under consideration.

I decide my own morality, and I'm very happy with it.

[Angrboda]

You need to add some pants to this "in the image of God" idea. Best we can tell, we're material beings from top to bottom. If you want to introduce something like a soul, you need to defend that assertion.

[Mudhammam]

I'm happy for people to give me opinions, and I will take them under consideration.

I decide my own morality, and I'm very happy with it.

It's almost as if Steve just crawled out from under a rock and discovered civilization yesterday. Has he not considered that moral philosophy has been an engagement of thoughtful minds for at least 2,400 years, none of which has depended on his or anyone's conception of God? Does it really pass him by unnoticed that we can talk about the good in the same way as deity yet to a far greater advantage, as in being intelligible, when we drop the silly metaphysics? It's funny how the things they make sacred never have any remote bearing on real-world events when the entire basis of sanctity as a conception lies in our experiences.

[abaris]

Two things about this in his image business. First it makes a certain kind of people feel so very special that they have no qualms about destroying nature. And second, it's a first class ruse to cover the fact of some Iron Age people from a not too educated part of the world creating Him in their own image. All in one package. Desert dweller prejudices and misoginy included.

[IATIA]

God, being the greatest conceivable being is necessarily good.

The bible contradicts that statement. Regardless, why would a god differentiate between good and bad? What would it's baseline be? If god is "necessarily good", then would not all things be good, including Satan, evil, death, suffering, etc.?

[robvalue]

God says, "Hey, go kill all those people in that town. And the babies. But keep the virgins to do what you want with. They're all evil in that town. Especially the babies."

If that is meant to be the standard of "good" then it has no bearing on any sensible use of the word, nor anything to do with human wellbeing. So it's an entirely pointless use of the word, unless you want to blindly follow edicts from an insane dictator.