But it occurred to me that when frequenting atheist vs theist debate groups, it is normally the inverse of that pathetic argument that’s made by theists. That is, they assert arrogantly that atheists don’t have morals (because we don’t believe in their god, and it isn’t even always the same god). The parenthesis is here because they invariably don’t even state the whole sentence. If they did, the non sequitur would jump out at you a little more enthusiastically.
So here’s the thing: The argument from morality insists that morals come from god. That is, the preferred deity (again, not always the same deity depending on the religion of the theist making the argument) is the source of some sort of objective morality. While it is easy to see that objective morality doesn’t exist, that’s not the point of today’s post.
The point today is this: Even if we assume their argument to be true, which requires pretending that all of their different subjective ideas of morality are not really subjective and are all the same, and that if we pick two individuals of the same belief system separated by location as well as hundreds of years, they will have identical morals (See how easy it is to refute?)… it still does not follow logically that anyone who doesn’t believe in this god lacks morality. That would make your god rather weak; one could undo its works simply by rejecting the deity. (Wow!)
I mean, this is more than it simply not following. If your god were the source of objective morality, then that morality would exist whether one accepts it or not. Kind of like… if I walk into a solid wall, which for some reason I believe to be a door, the wall will still be there. I am not Bugs Bunny painting a door to escape Elmer Fudd, and then walking through it. Real life does not work like a fucking cartoon, but your “logic” makes about as much sense as a Looney Tunes cartoon.
Th-th-th that’s all, folks!