The false dichotomy, JP, is in the misconstruction of your premises. You use 'either this/then this' rather than 'this/not this'. There is a difference in logic between true/not true and true/false.

"If I have erred I am sure there are plenty of atheists here who will set me straight." Not just atheists. George has tried to explain, also. The logical fallacy is your argument from personal incredulity: "if atheism is true ethical discussion makes no sense at all."

That statement is not true. Though, by repeated unsubstantiated assertion, apparently it is to you.

All ethical and moral questions are human mediated and their value is to the humans involved in the situations being discussed.

The divine command theory of morality is examined in a really accessible way in less than ten minutes here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbQBw5DM41o

If it helps to depersonalize it somewhat, pretend the explanation is being directed to a fundamentalist Muslim. Then imagine yourself explaining why it is morally wrong for them to follow what they claim are Allah's commands as they strap on a bomb vest.

Human perceptions about right and wrong can and do exist independent of beliefs about the universe

Brilliant video there, wmTrevor. It's essentially and extremely detailed look at the Euthyphro dilemma and the attempts from theologians to get around it.

Under '2. It's morally wrong to violate God's Commands', I suspect JP is coming from '3' and/or '5', which is why I was asking him why anyone should care about what a god places value in (or thinks is morally right).

JP,

Allow me to, once again, ask you a question that usually nips this in the bud real quick:

How do you know that God is the good guy and the devil is the bad guy? Because the Bible tells you so? What if God's just trying to trick you? Satan is, after all, the one sitting there quietly while God childishly writes stuff about him. Perhaps Satan is rising above it all while sitting back quietly waiting to see if you ever figure out that what God has been saying isn't good at all?

If you are able to determine that God is the good guy, independent of God (or are you happy with circular reasoning?), then not only is God just a useless middle-man that you can cut out, but, by your own reasoning, no-one should care that everyone else thinks that God is the good guy because that decision is necessarily made independent of God and prior to accepting his moral code.

Your argument is self-defeating.

davidf, Wm Trevor, AJ Philips, Banjo Patterson – okay, let us take it that you are correct that there is no God. Nevertheless I believe that my point that ethical discussion makes no sense in a godless universe would remain correct.

I have repeatedly said that I agree that if atheism is true individuals and/or groups of people can make up what they call moral standards or rules. Problems arise though when atheists make up conflicting moral standards. If one atheist holds that abortion is immoral and another atheist holds that abortion is moral, where can they go from there? Why should the first atheist’s made up moral standard trump the second atheist’s made up moral standard, or vice versa? Who could possibly arbitrate?

Perhaps one of the atheists could do a survey and establish that a majority of people agree with his position. But what would that achieve? Is there some objective moral rule that states that what the majority decide is right? If so, where does such a rule come from?

If atheism is true there is no objective basis for any standards of morality. Rather, all you have is people expressing their preference for what they want to call moral or immoral. Lots of people might choose to call Stalin’s actions immoral but simply making such a declaration would not make his behaviour immoral. His behaviour would just be unpalatable to some people just like vanilla ice-cream may be unpalatable to some people.

That does not mean that people who do things that people don’t like would not be locked up or killed if that could be gotten away with. But just because some may have the power to imprison or kill does not make them morally right and their victims wrong. It just means that they have the power to get what they want.

Atheism logically implies amorality – unless of course you can somehow point to some objective standard of morality in a godless universe.

Dear JP,

Atheism does not logically imply amorality. you ignore the evidence that it doesn't. Why bother with facts? Your mind is made up.

JP:

“Atheism logically implies amorality – unless of course you can somehow point to some objective standard of morality in a godless universe.”

Do you feel guilty when you have hurt someone or treated them unjustly? Do you feel angry when you are treated unjustly? Do you feel afraid when someone is trying to hurt you? Do you feel sad when someone takes away something you love?

Why do you think we have those feelings? If you like - why did God create us with those feelings? What is their purpose? You keep talking as if we need to be told how to behave by someone who is over and above human nature. What is wrong with our human nature? Why would you need to be told how to behave when everything you need exists within your own human nature? The only reason you do not trust those things is because you have suppressed those things at the behest of religious teachers

JP,

Would I be right in assuming that you’re discussing the purely theoretical here? The reason I ask is because, so long as God continues to act as though he doesn’t exist (communicating with us using nothing more than a disjointed and contradictory book in which an infinite combination of interpretations are possible, and warm fuzzy feelings with more rational explanations), then the challenges you mention exist with or without him.

So if you are just discussing the purely theoretical here, then it’s a nice thought experiment, but it’s essentially meaningless because we don’t live in a world in which the celestial creator communicates with us in any way that is effective, useful or enables us to avoid the challenges you raise.

<<Rather, all you have is people expressing their preference for what they want to call moral or immoral.>>

Well it’s worked so far. Given that so many don’t believe in a god, and that those who do may believe in different gods with different values, how do you explain the fact that the sky hasn’t fallen in? Our current world, with literally billions of different religious beliefs, is as disorganised and “lost” as the “if-atheism-is-true” world that you hypothesise about.

Do you realise that when the brain activity of believers is monitored, the part of the brain that shows activity, when asked what they think God thinks of something, is the same part that shows activity when asked what they themselves think about the very same thing. A different part of the brain shows activity, however, when asked what they think someone else thinks about something. (http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2009/11/30/creating-god-in-ones-own-image)

This is why everyone’s god agrees with the believer. So, god or no god, you’re still left with the same conundrum.

A non-existent god, or a god that is hiding everywhere, solves absolutely nothing.