Book Plunge: Why Science Does Not Disprove God

[Apologiaphoenix]

Well, if you are not a divine command theorist, then you believe that morals are not arbitrary and not dependent upon an external source. Is murder immoral in itself, or is it merely immoral because god exists?

If there was no God, there would be no good or evil or anything else because God is the ontological foundation of goodness. It makes no sense to say something is good if goodness has no foundation.

Well, since good has no meaning in and of itself apart from a relational meaning, it would be silly of me to give a definition of what good is in itself. Perhaps you can supply your own definition of "good" so that we are not talking past each other?

I could, but since you are the ones making assertions about the nature of goodness, I would expect you to know what you're talking about.

You missed the point entirely. Whether objective morals exist or not has nothing to do with whether or not they are believed in.

Sure. It also has nothing to do with whether we should follow them, but if objective morals exist, then objective moral truths exist and there should be a reason to follow them.

No, that is foolish. Is who is correct about the existence or not of god essential to whether or not god exists? Of course not? Who is correct and who is wrong is beside the point.

No, but when it comes to reasoning, if we're going to say reason tells us, then we have to go with someone's reason and we have to know who has the correct reasoning.

[JimL]

If there was no God, there would be no good or evil or anything else because God is the ontological foundation of goodness.

That is mere assertion.

It makes no sense to say something is good if goodness has no foundation.

If God didn't exist, would it make no sense to say that consuming water is good? Of course it would make sense, because what is good and what is evil is relative to life.

I could, but since you are the ones making assertions about the nature of goodness, I would expect you to know what you're talking about.

Sounds like a cop out to me AP. Come on AP, I gave you my definition of good, it is only right that you should reciprocate in kind rather than just declaring that your opponent doesn't no what they are talking about.

Sure. It also has nothing to do with whether we should follow them, but if objective morals exist, then objective moral truths exist and there should be a reason to follow them.

And so you know what the objective morals are do you? But again that is not the point, the point is whether or not objective morals can exist in themselves, not whether we grasp them or not.

No, but when it comes to reasoning, if we're going to say reason tells us, then we have to go with someone's reason and we have to know who has the correct reasoning.

We are talking about whether or not there is a correct end to reason, not whether or not that correct end is grasped or followed.

[Apologiaphoenix]

That is mere assertion.

Yes. Why? You asked what I believe. You did not ask for an argument for it.

If God didn't exist, would it make no sense to say that consuming water is good? Of course it would make sense, because what is good and what is evil is relative to life.

No it wouldn't because good and evil would have no meaning. They would just be terms we apply to objects that speak of no values that they actually have.

Sounds like a cop out to me AP. Come on AP, I gave you my definition of good, it is only right that you should reciprocate in kind rather than just declaring that your opponent doesn't no what they are talking about.

Even though I never saw one from you, I'll bite. The good is that at which all things aim. Start with the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle and go from there.

And so you know what the objective morals are do you? But again that is not the point, the point is whether or not objective morals can exist in themselves, not whether we grasp them or not.

I did not claim to know what they are yet. I just made claims about if they exist. Try to stay on topic. Also, the debate is if they do exist first and then if they do exist how do they exist. Are you really saying you think they exist in themselves?

We are talking about whether or not there is a correct end to reason, not whether or not that correct end is grasped or followed.

No we're not. We're talking about if reason is to be the authority on morals. My point is that at this point, each side will claim reason for its position. What we have to look at is the evidence which gets us into the metaphysics.

[JimL]

Yes. Why? You asked what I believe. You did not ask for an argument for it.

Actually I ask you that "if god did not exist" would taking someones life be just fine with you? Would you murder, lie, rape and steal in order to get what you want if god did not exist?

No it wouldn't because good and evil would have no meaning. They would just be terms we apply to objects that speak of no values that they actually have.

So as above, without the existence of god, you would be what atheists would call an evil person?

Even though I never saw one from you, I'll bite. The good is that at which all things aim. Start with the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle and go from there.

That only tells us that all things aim at the good, it doesn't tell us what the good is. What is good in itself, and why do all things aim at it?

I did not claim to know what they are yet.

Why not? How do you come to know what they are?

I just made claims about if they exist. Try to stay on topic. Also, the debate is if they do exist first and then if they do exist how do they exist. Are you really saying you think they exist in themselves?

What I'm saying is that morals do not need a source, they merely need to serve the purposes of humanity as a whole. The golden rule, if adhered to, would serve that purpose and a divine source would in no way be needed for that to be the case. So, they don't need a source to be objective in the sense that they serve the purpose intended, and the purpose intended is a peaceful and joyous co-existence of humanity which is what we call "good."

No we're not. We're talking about if reason is to be the authority on morals. My point is that at this point, each side will claim reason for its position. What we have to look at is the evidence which gets us into the metaphysics.

But as I said before it doesn't matter what each side claims, only one side can come to the correct conclusion, the other would be wrong. That would be true even for you, since even though you believe there to be an objective source of morals, you don't know what they are. How do you determine what they are?

[Apologiaphoenix]

Actually I ask you that "if god did not exist" would taking someones life be just fine with you? Would you murder, lie, rape and steal in order to get what you want if god did not exist?

This is what was asked.

"Well, if you are not a divine command theorist, then you believe that morals are not arbitrary and not dependent upon an external source. Is murder immoral in itself, or is it merely immoral because god exists?"

I focused on the first part about the notion of morality itself and not the specific instance. If there was no God, then there would be no good and there would be no evil. What reason would I have to not act as I want? Yet even still, I would not have a reason to act at all.

So as above, without the existence of god, you would be what atheists would call an evil person?

I would technically be just a person, but if there is no God, good and evil have no meaning. Why bother?

That only tells us that all things aim at the good, it doesn't tell us what the good is. What is good in itself, and why do all things aim at it?

Yeah it does, and it's the start. Goodness is really when something is an accurate representation of its nature. A good pizza is that which has the qualities befitting a pizza. A good book the same. A good person the same. Goodness is then closely related to being on this front.

Why not? How do you come to know what they are?

We can know by either reason or revelation. I think all moral truths can be known by reason alone, but that is reason and not our usual guides of feeling and emotion and I think we must follow good Aristotelianism.

What I'm saying is that morals do not need a source, they merely need to serve the purposes of humanity as a whole. The golden rule, if adhered to, would serve that purpose and a divine source would in no way be needed for that to be the case. So, they don't need a source to be objective in the sense that they serve the purpose intended, and the purpose intended is a peaceful and joyous co-existence of humanity which is what we call "good."

Could I say the same for God and have Him be called objective? He doesn't need a source. He serves the purposes of humanity as a whole and is an incentive to good moral behavior. But yet I wonder about the ontology of this morality you speak of. Is it something material or do you hold to some Platonic notion?

But as I said before it doesn't matter what each side claims, only one side can come to the correct conclusion, the other would be wrong. That would be true even for you, since even though you believe there to be an objective source of morals, you don't know what they are. How do you determine what they are?

I did not say I do not know what they are. I said I had not made that claim yet. I agree we have to use reason to understand truth, but it is dangerous to just stand up and say "My position is the position of reason." You must show how you got to that position so that it should be considered reasonable.

[JimL]

This is what was asked.

"Well, if you are not a divine command theorist, then you believe that morals are not arbitrary and not dependent upon an external source. Is murder immoral in itself, or is it merely immoral because god exists?"

I focused on the first part about the notion of morality itself and not the specific instance. If there was no God, then there would be no good and there would be no evil. What reason would I have to not act as I want? Yet even still, I would not have a reason to act at all.

So, if god didn't exist, murder would be just fine with you? Is that what you are saying? What if god did not exist and your child or wife were murdered, would you consider that to be good or bad for you and your family?

I would technically be just a person, but if there is no God, good and evil have no meaning. Why bother?

Good and evil have meaning to you personally whether god exists or not, as well as whether you can admit to it or not.

Yeah it does, and it's the start. Goodness is really when something is an accurate representation of its nature. A good pizza is that which has the qualities befitting a pizza. A good book the same. A good person the same. Goodness is then closely related to being on this front.

I don't see god in your discription anywhere, nor the need for one? You also don't explain what an accurate representation of a things nature is, i.e. you don't explain by this what good is in itself.

We can know by either reason or revelation. I think all moral truths can be known by reason alone, but that is reason and not our usual guides of feeling and emotion and I think we must follow good Aristotelianism.

And how does reasoning reveal to us what is good and what is evil?

Could I say the same for God and have Him be called objective? He doesn't need a source. He serves the purposes of humanity as a whole and is an incentive to good moral behavior. But yet I wonder about the ontology of this morality you speak of. Is it something material or do you hold to some Platonic notion?

No, it is neither, good and evil are relative terms that can be understood from an individuals perspective or from the perspective of humanity as a whole. But we don't live as individuals we live together as a community, so only a system of morals that serve the interests of both the individual and the community as a whole are effective. Hence the golden rule!

I did not say I do not know what they are. I said I had not made that claim yet. I agree we have to use reason to understand truth, but it is dangerous to just stand up and say "My position is the position of reason." You must show how you got to that position so that it should be considered reasonable.

Of course. And one could then argue that it is reasonable to consider murder to be evil because if it is not, then there is no reason that someone shouldn't murder you. Its not in your best interests to be murdered! The existence of God isn't needed for one to come to a reasonable conclusion, nor does the moral against murder need be an objective fact.

[Apologiaphoenix]

So, if god didn't exist, murder would be just fine with you? Is that what you are saying? What if god did not exist and your child or wife were murdered, would you consider that to be good or bad for you and your family?

If God does not exist, there is no good or evil. I could say I wouldn't like it, but I could not say it was evil. I also could not say murder would be real. I can only say killing is.

Good and evil have meaning to you personally whether god exists or not, as well as whether you can admit to it or not.

And I should think that that meaning is a true meaning because?

I don't see god in your discription anywhere, nor the need for one? You also don't explain what an accurate representation of a things nature is, i.e. you don't explain by this what good is in itself.

Yes. God is not in my description. Goodness is known in itself. That's epistemology. It's basis is God. An accurate representation depends on the thing itself. For instance, a squirrel that eats nuts is what we expect. What about one that eats toothpaste?

And how does reasoning reveal to us what is good and what is evil?

Look up Natural Law thinking. You start with knowing what the nature of things is and that tells you how they are to be treated.

No, it is neither, good and evil are relative terms that can be understood from an individuals perspective or from the perspective of humanity as a whole. But we don't live as individuals we live together as a community, so only a system of morals that serve the interests of both the individual and the community as a whole are effective. Hence the golden rule!

But why should I think this? Why should I care about humanity as a whole? Only insofar as they can serve my own interests? What a wonderful way of thinking! What happens when they no longer serve my interests?

Of course. And one could then argue that it is reasonable to consider murder to be evil because if it is not, then there is no reason that someone shouldn't murder you. Its not in your best interests to be murdered! The existence of God isn't needed for one to come to a reasonable conclusion, nor does the moral against murder need be an objective fact.

Saying I do not want to be murdered does not mean that murder itself is evil. I don't want to have to pay a lot of money to get a new car or something like that, therefore, a car dealership should give it to me for free? I cannot determine what is good or evil just based on what I like.

[JimL]

If God does not exist, there is no good or evil. I could say I wouldn't like it, but I could not say it was evil. I also could not say murder would be real. I can only say killing is.

Why wouldn't you like to be murdered, or killed? Would you consider that to be a bad thing for you?

And I should think that that meaning is a true meaning because?

I think you need to get your head out of the philosophy books and start using your own head. If good and evil have meaning to you personally, then good and evil have meaning whether god exists or not.

Yes. God is not in my description. Goodness is known in itself. That's epistemology. It's basis is God. An accurate representation depends on the thing itself. For instance, a squirrel that eats nuts is what we expect. What about one that eats toothpaste?

Well then, that must be an evil squirrel.

Look up Natural Law thinking. You start with knowing what the nature of things is and that tells you how they are to be treated.

But we are not talking about things, we are talking about morals. How does reason tell you what is a right or a wrong action?

But why should I think this? Why should I care about humanity as a whole? Only insofar as they can serve my own interests? What a wonderful way of thinking! What happens when they no longer serve my interests?

Because if you don't care about other humans then they will not care about you either. Do unto others.......!

Saying I do not want to be murdered does not mean that murder itself is evil.

What would you call it then, good?

I don't want to have to pay a lot of money to get a new car or something like that, therefore, a car dealership should give it to me for free? I cannot determine what is good or evil just based on what I like.

Thats because it isn't all about you, its about the collective society. If they had to give you the car for free, then you would be causing harm to them.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Why wouldn't you like to be murdered, or killed? Would you consider that to be a bad thing for you?

I said I wouldn't, but so what? Should morality be based on what I like?

I think you need to get your head out of the philosophy books and start using your own head. If good and evil have meaning to you personally, then good and evil have meaning whether god exists or not.

Note I said I should think that meaning is a true meaning because?

Well then, that must be an evil squirrel.

Not evil as in the case of moral evil, but there is an evil in that it lacks something that it should by nature have.

But we are not talking about things, we are talking about morals. How does reason tell you what is a right or a wrong action?

Ah, but we must start with things. How you treat a character in say, a video game, and how you treat a character who is your next-door neighbor are both different based on what the thing is.

Because if you don't care about other humans then they will not care about you either. Do unto others.......!

Ah. So I should care because they can do good for me, and if I think they can no longer do good for me? If I'm in a position where I don't need them to do good for me?

What would you call it then, good?

If good and evil are just relative terms and have no objective meaning or basis, it's just something I don't like.

Thats because it isn't all about you, its about the collective society. If they had to give you the car for free, then you would be causing harm to them.

Ah. So I should do good above because it is good for me....

But then later on I don't need to think about what's good for me. I need to think more about the good of society.

Which one should I think about?

[JimL]

I said I wouldn't, but so what? Should morality be based on what I like?

My question was "Why wouldn't you like it?" So, Why wouldn't you want to be murdered?

Note I said I should think that meaning is a true meaning because?

Because that which is good for you personally and that which is evil to you personally, obviously has meaning to you, therefore it has what we call meaning.

Not evil as in the case of moral evil, but there is an evil in that it lacks something that it should by nature have.

Yeah, the squirrel apparently lacks nuts!

Ah, but we must start with things. How you treat a character in say, a video game, and how you treat a character who is your next-door neighbor are both different based on what the thing is.

No, we are talking morals. How does reason reveal to you right from wrong? In other words reason tells you that murder is wrong. Can you explain the reasoning process and how you come to that conclusion?

Ah. So I should care because they can do good for me, and if I think they can no longer do good for me? If I'm in a position where I don't need them to do good for me?

We live in society, we are always in a position to do good or evil to each other. Your problem is that you keep thinking that morality is all about you, what is good for you, it isn't only about you, it is about the good of the society as a whole of which you are a part.

If good and evil are just relative terms and have no objective meaning or basis, it's just something I don't like.

So what would you call it if you or a loved one were murdered? If you wouldn't like it, then you being murdered wouldn't be a good thing as far as you are concerned, would it?

Ah. So I should do good above because it is good for me....

But then later on I don't need to think about what's good for me. I need to think more about the good of society.

Which one should I think about?

You are part of the society, within the which you exist and without the which would not be good for you. So, what is in the best interests of society as a whole is also in your best intersts.

[Apologiaphoenix]

My question was "Why wouldn't you like it?" So, Why wouldn't you want to be murdered?

I do like life, but if there was no good or evil, there would be no reason for me to like it.

Because that which is good for you personally and that which is evil to you personally, obviously has meaning to you, therefore it has what we call meaning.

And this meaning to me is the true meaning because?

Yeah, the squirrel apparently lacks nuts!

No. It lacks the proper diet of a squirrel.

No, we are talking morals. How does reason reveal to you right from wrong? In other words reason tells you that murder is wrong. Can you explain the reasoning process and how you come to that conclusion?

I started where I started. That's how the reasoning process works. You don't jump to the conclusion.

We live in society, we are always in a position to do good or evil to each other. Your problem is that you keep thinking that morality is all about you, what is good for you, it isn't only about you, it is about the good of the society as a whole of which you are a part.

No. I'm using your definitions. You're the one talking about what things mean to me and then saying that it's not about me. Which is it?

So what would you call it if you or a loved one were murdered? If you wouldn't like it, then you being murdered wouldn't be a good thing as far as you are concerned, would it?

No. I couldn't say it was not good. I could just say I don't like it.

You are part of the society, within the which you exist and without the which would not be good for you. So, what is in the best interests of society as a whole is also in your best intersts.

So what? Milk the society for as much as I can to get what I want.

Note that you're talking about my self-interests again and then saying above my problem is I'm thinking about my self-interests.

Which is it?

[JimL]

I do like life, but if there was no good or evil, there would be no reason for me to like it.

So you like life because something dictates what is either good or evil with regards to the way you ought to live your life? A God then is not necessary for that state of affairs to exist.

And this meaning to me is the true meaning because?

Well, do you mean to say that the only reason you don't want to be murdered is because god says that such a state of affairs would be evil? Is that what you mean by the "true meaning?"

No. It lacks the proper diet of a squirrel.

And so with regards to a squirell, its following a proper diet, a diet befitting its nature, is what you would call the good? Then God is not necessary for that state of affairs to exist in nature.

I started where I started. That's how the reasoning process works. You don't jump to the conclusion.

How by the process of reasoning did you come to the conclusion that murder is wrong? You said that through reason alone you could determine right from wrong. So what is your reasoning that led you to the conclusion that murder is a moral wrong?

No. I'm using your definitions. You're the one talking about what things mean to me and then saying that it's not about me. Which is it?

No, I did not say that at all, I said that morality is not "only about you" that you are part of a human community and so morals are about what is in the best interest of both you and the community as a whole.

No. I couldn't say it was not good. I could just say I don't like it.

But the reason you would not like it if a loved one was murdered is because that wouldn't be a good situation as far as you are concerned. You would suffer, would you not?

So what? Milk the society for as much as I can to get what I want.

This kind anti-social attitude is one of the reasons why we created gods in the first place.

Note that you're talking about my self-interests again and then saying above my problem is I'm thinking about my self-interests.

Which is it?

I'm talking about your best self interests with regards to the human community of which you are a part. Again morals are not all about you, they are about the best interests of all individuals living together within a social structure.

[Apologiaphoenix]

So you like life because something dictates what is either good or evil with regards to the way you ought to live your life? A God then is not necessary for that state of affairs to exist.

You're really stuck on this dictation theory of explaining good and evil aren't you? I have said it wouldn't even make sense to say I like life because that is saying life is good and if good and evil have no meaning....

Well, do you mean to say that the only reason you don't want to be murdered is because god says that such a state of affairs would be evil? Is that what you mean by the "true meaning?"

Still stuck on the dictation theory and still wanting to hear about the true meaning.

And so with regards to a squirell, its following a proper diet, a diet befitting its nature, is what you would call the good? Then God is not necessary for that state of affairs to exist in nature.

No. I would call it good. What is necessary is to know why that is good and what that goodness is. Again, you want to leap to the conclusion way too quickly that you want.

How by the process of reasoning did you come to the conclusion that murder is wrong? You said that through reason alone you could determine right from wrong. So what is your reasoning that led you to the conclusion that murder is a moral wrong?

Well I was stating to explain and you wanted to jump to the conclusion instead.

No, I did not say that at all, I said that morality is not "only about you" that you are part of a human community and so morals are about what is in the best interest of both you and the community as a whole.

Except I do what I do for society supposedly because it is in my best interests.

But the reason you would not like it if a loved one was murdered is because that wouldn't be a good situation as far as you are concerned. You would suffer, would you not?

No. I could just say I didn't like it. I could not say it was good or evil. It just is.

This kind anti-social attitude is one of the reasons why we created gods in the first place.

Do you have any evidence from the studies of primitive religion to back this? Ever read Andrew Lang or Wilhelm Schmidt, or is this just a faith claim?

I'm talking about your best self interests with regards to the human community of which you are a part. Again morals are not all about you, they are about the best interests of all individuals living together within a social structure.

And if I can get away with it and don't need society or can pull a fast one on them, why should I care?

[JimL]

You're really stuck on this dictation theory of explaining good and evil aren't you? I have said it wouldn't even make sense to say I like life because that is saying life is good and if good and evil have no meaning....

So then, saying what it is that you like is like saying that thing is good, and saying what it is that you don't like is like saying that thing is evil? But if all things being the same, accepting for the fact that god didn't exist, there wouldn't be anything about life that you could say that you either liked or did not like? Why then, if god did not exist, would you say that you either liked or disliked anything at all as you have already said you would do with respect to the fact of your loved one being murdered.? Why would you not like it, if not liking it would make no sense?

Still stuck on the dictation theory and still wanting to hear about the true meaning.

Well yes, that is the purpose of an exchange of honest ideas. You know, you take a person question to heart and try to answer it as objectively and honestly as it is possible for you to do.

No. I would call it good. What is necessary is to know why that is good and what that goodness is. Again, you want to leap to the conclusion way too quickly that you want.

You do not even make sense AP. Thats what I said, that you would call it good! And you said that the reason that you would call it good is because a diet of nuts befits the nature of the squirrel. So I said, that a god would need have nothing to do with that. So, I don't know what you are talking about when saying I want to jump to conclusions.

Well I was stating to explain and you wanted to jump to the conclusion instead.

Well, instead of starting to explain, whatever that means, maybe you could actually explain. So again I will ask you. How does your use of reason alone bring you to the conclusion that murder is immoral.

Except I do what I do for society supposedly because it is in my best interests.

Yes, because living within a social structure is itself in your own best interests.

No. I could just say I didn't like it. I could not say it was good or evil. It just is.

No! you wouldn't suffer if a loved one was murdered? If it just is, then for what reason would you say that you didn't like it?

Do you have any evidence from the studies of primitive religion to back this? Ever read Andrew Lang or Wilhelm Schmidt, or is this just a faith claim?

It is a common sense claim, which you yourself have just proven. Without god you say there is no reason that you should hold to any social values of right or wrong behavior. There would be no reason for you to act in accordance with the values that you now hold to, unless god exists. correct?

And if I can get away with it and don't need society or can pull a fast one on them, why should I care?

Do you see what I mean now? Without the notion of a god watching over you, you would not care or hold to any personal principles concerning what is right or wrong. Do you think your god would be more impressed with your unprincipled obedience or with the principled atheist.

[Apologiaphoenix]

So then, saying what it is that you like is like saying that thing is good, and saying what it is that you don't like is like saying that thing is evil? But if all things being the same, accepting for the fact that god didn't exist, there wouldn't be anything about life that you could say that you either liked or did not like? Why then, if god did not exist, would you say that you either liked or disliked anything at all as you have already said you would do with respect to the fact of your loved one being murdered.? Why would you not like it, if not liking it would make no sense?

That's even more of the problem. There's no reason why I should.

Well yes, that is the purpose of an exchange of honest ideas. You know, you take a person question to heart and try to answer it as objectively and honestly as it is possible for you to do.

I agree. So when you are going to answer my question I've been asking about true meaning?

You do not even make sense AP. Thats what I said, that you would call it good! And you said that the reason that you would call it good is because a diet of nuts befits the nature of the squirrel. So I said, that a god would need have nothing to do with that. So, I don't know what you are talking about when saying I want to jump to conclusions.

All we've said at this point is that if a squirrel is good in this sense, then it will like nuts. We have not said why that is. We have not explained why there is a constant connection between A and B. We have not even really begun examining the data yet and you're already jumping to "God isn't needed!" At this point, all that is agreed on is "If a squirrel eats nuts, it's a good representation of what it means to be a squirrel."

Well, instead of starting to explain, whatever that means, maybe you could actually explain. So again I will ask you. How does your use of reason alone bring you to the conclusion that murder is immoral.

We have to start somewhere. If I jump ahead, then things get lost along the way, such as valuable data, so again I start. You begin with not knowing what right actions are, which is morality, but what the things are the actions are done towards.


[QUOTE] Yes, because living within a social structure is itself in your own best interests. [QUOTE]

So then, I'm doing this because I'm looking out for #1. Got it.

So what happens when I no longer think living according to the social structure is no longer in my best interests?

No! you wouldn't suffer if a loved one was murdered? If it just is, then for what reason would you say that you didn't like it?

Sure I could suffer, but I could not say it was evil.

It is a common sense claim, which you yourself have just proven. Without god you say there is no reason that you should hold to any social values of right or wrong behavior. There would be no reason for you to act in accordance with the values that you now hold to, unless god exists. correct?

No. I have not proven it. You would have to demonstrate this claim by showing that people groups started out atheistic and then they were so busy killing each other that someone said "Hey! Let's make up some gods to give us some rules so we can all get along!" That's not a common sense claim. It's a matter of history. Unfortunately, the research of people like Lang and Schmidt have made a powerful case that humanity really began as monotheistic.

Do you see what I mean now? Without the notion of a god watching over you, you would not care or hold to any personal principles concerning what is right or wrong. Do you think your god would be more impressed with your unprincipled obedience or with the principled atheist.

You're missing the point. I'm saying without God, there is no good or evil. That's the logical conclusion of the worldview. Unfortunately, there's also no reason to do anything.

Your final point assumes a sort of soteriology where God looks at our motives to decide who's doing good and then looks and grades us on our behavior. Part of the point is that we don't tend to naturally want to be good and we have to do something about that aspect of ourselves. Often times, this can start out as duty. We do what we do just because we know it is the right thing to do. In the end, we do eventually often form a habit out of it.

Kind of like Aristotle said as well.