The Human Animal...

[Diogenes]

If you think I accepted the second horn of the Euthyphro dilemma then I can only conclude that you didn't understand my argument. I tossed both horns away and provided a solution overlooked by the dilemma.

You accepted the second horn of the modified Euthyphro as you denied goodness as external property.

Also, I'm not seeing any argument from you that would lead me to believe that might ought not make right.

I don't have to make an argument for something that I never said. Might doesn't concern itself with making right, merely enforcing edicts. Might ignores the issue of "rightness" as you've yourself.

Heaven and hell are not a "carrot and stick" since even those who reject God and deny the existence of the afterlife are still obligated to act morally, which answers your last objection: obligation has nothing to do with our consent. Satan might reject God's authority, but he is still morally obligated to obey God who has the ability and authority to hold him accountable.

As you already concluded, the obligation exists insomuch as God enforces God's edicts. You've already concluded "might makes right". It's not like "might makes right" morality or DCT means Christianity is false. I understand that there's a desire for Christian morality to be more substantive, but that's a separate issue

Indeed. Atheists and agnostics hate debating morality because they inevitably tie themselves into knots from which they are unable to extricate themselves.

Or when theists quote mine, mischaracterise moral philosophy or in general merely play the gotcha game.. I don't hate discussing morality per se as there's a lot of interesting moving parts, I just have a disdain for interlocutors acting in bad faith in general. Morality is just an area where there's bad faith on both sides.

[Mountain Man]

It's true that you can't count on people to care about their moral obligations, whether they are atheists or theists.

The problem for the atheist is not that people might not care about their moral obligations, the problem for the atheist is that people have no moral obligations at all. The concept of right and wrong has no meaning in an atheistic universe.

I'll just remind you that you said, "...the presence of potential negative consequences does not entail obligation."

I also said that "moral obligation ... is imposed on us by God who is the ultimate moral authority."

Feel free to show how those statements are contradictory. We are obligated to obey God not because of the consequences for disobeying him but simply because he is the ultimate moral authority. Consequences in and of themselves carry no force of obligation as demonstrated by the example "You ought not jump from a height of 10-feet because you might injure yourself."

[Stoic]

The problem for the atheist is not that people might not care about their moral obligations, the problem for the atheist is that people have no moral obligations at all. The concept of right and wrong has no meaning in an atheistic universe.

That's an interesting opinion, and seems pretty common in people who know nothing about atheism.

I also said that "moral obligation ... is imposed on us by God who is the ultimate moral authority."

Feel free to show how those statements are contradictory. We are obligated to obey God not because of the consequences for disobeying him but simply because he is the ultimate moral authority. Consequences in and of themselves carry no force of obligation as demonstrated by the example "You ought not jump from a height of 10-feet because you might injure yourself."

The problem for theists is that their alleged "ultimate moral authority" means nothing to people who don't believe in him.

[Mountain Man]

That's an interesting opinion, and seems pretty common in people who know nothing about atheism.

In that case, you simply need to explain the basis for moral obligation in the atheist worldview. Well?

The problem for theists is that their alleged "ultimate moral authority" means nothing to people who don't believe in him.

Whether or not one believes in God is irrelevant. That atheists recognize the existence of moral obligation and yet cannot account for it in their worldview is a strong argument in favor of theism.

[eider]

This is a problem that atheists repeatedly run face-first into, trying to explain what moral obligation we have to not simply follow our natural instincts.

What are your 'natural instincts', please?
List.... ?

[Mountain Man]

What are your 'natural instincts', please?
List.... ?

All humans are instinctively selfish, inclined to put their own desires and well-being ahead of others, and if atheism is true, why shouldn't they?

[Machinist]

That atheists recognize the existence of moral obligation and yet cannot account for it in their worldview is a strong argument in favor of theism.

They do not recognize the existence of an absolute moral obligation though...as in an absolute moral standard. I/m still seeing it as 50/50.

Happy Easter MM and Seer! Christ is Risen!

[Stoic]

In that case, you simply need to explain the basis for moral obligation in the atheist worldview. Well?

It's not likely that I could explain it to your satisfaction. Fortunately, that isn't a requirement.

[Mountain Man]

They do not recognize the existence of an absolute moral obligation though...as in an absolute moral standard. I/m still seeing it as 50/50.

Next time you get pulled over by the police, tell the officer, "I'm sorry, sir, but I don't recognize your authority to enforce the law," and drive away. See how that works for you.

God's supreme authority and our obligation to him does not require our consent.

[Mountain Man]

It's not likely that I could explain it to your satisfaction.

It's not likely that you can explain it at all.

[eider]

All humans are instinctively selfish, inclined to put their own desires and well-being ahead of others, and if atheism is true, why shouldn't they?

I guess all humans are by instinct, selfish unless it is their offspring or family or group at risk. ..........
Oh! So humans are NOT completely selfish at all, are they......... they've figured out that their household, their community and even their country does matter to them. Even further than that, they can have figured out that the whole Earth matters to them because it is our only home.

So that's probably why atheists and Christians and Buddhists and Hindus and Muslims can think that others matter.

No?

[Mountain Man]

I guess all humans are by instinct, selfish unless it is their offspring or family or group at risk. ..........
Oh! So humans are NOT completely selfish at all, are they......... they've figured out that their household, their community and even their country does matter to them. Even further than that, they can have figured out that the whole Earth matters to them because it is our only home.

So that's probably why atheists and Christians and Buddhists and Hindus and Muslims can think that others matter.

No?

And so we come to the dilemma that seer originally pointed to in the opening post: why suppress our natural inclination to only care about ourselves? You point out certain situations where we do so, but why? What obligation do we have not to enrich ourselves at the expense of others? In an atheistic universe, has a person who lives wholly to satisfy his own desires really done anything immoral?

[Stoic]

It's not likely that you can explain it at all.

I have a good enough idea where my own sense of moral obligation came from. It's a combination of my innate sense of empathy, how my parents raised me, what is expected of me by my family, friends, and society, and my desire to be a good person so that I can look myself in the mirror, and enjoy the benefits of being seen as a good person by the people around me.

As I said, this answer may not be good enough for you, for any number of reasons. But all that really matters is that it's good enough for me.

[eider]

And so we come to the dilemma that seer originally pointed to in the opening post: why suppress our natural inclination to only care about ourselves? You point out certain situations where we do so, but why? What obligation do we have not to enrich ourselves at the expense of others? In an atheistic universe, has a person who lives wholly to satisfy his own desires really done anything immoral?

I've already answered that question.
Nature has ordained that many creatures care for their young, their families, their tribes and on.....
We have developed just far enough to want to care for even more than that, extending to the ecology, the planet etc. It's natural.

You mention about people who live to' wholly satisfy own desires' on respect of atheists. That looks as if you have made your mind up, yes?
History has not written up Christianity in too good a light for you to judge any other religions, agnosticism or atheism surely?

[Machinist]

"Next time you get pulled over by the police, tell the officer, "I'm sorry, sir, but I don't recognize your authority to enforce the law," and drive away. See how that works for you. " - MM

It wouldn't go well for me. I tried to elude a bicycle cop once. That didn't go well.

"God's supreme authority and our obligation to him does not require our consent."- MM

If a God of Supreme Authority exists, and we begin with that axiom, then your statement is true.