Objective morality makes atheism improbable

Atheism is Consonant with Objective MoralityI will assume he’s never read atheist philosopher Sam Harris’s recent book on objective morality through objective facts entitled The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values. [1] He also fails to take into account that the most influential moral objectivists in history have been general skeptics on religion and arguments for god such as Immanuel Kant who wrote Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals and introduced the famous ethical concept of the categorical imperative; there is also Friedrich Nietzsche’s Transvaluation of Values, which divides all morality into Master-Morality and Slave-Morality. Furthermore, the philosophical history of atheism can be traced back to the rationalism of the Milesian philosophers of Ancient Greece that emphasizes more than the rejection of myth, but the replacement of myth. What replaces myth is rationality. “A rational account is broadly one which confines itself to reasons, evidence and arguments that are open to scrutiny, assessment, acceptance or rejection, on the basis of principles and facts which are available to all. An optimally rational account is one in which we don’t have to plug any gaps with speculation, opinion, or any other ungrounded beliefs.” [2] Furthering this, Aristotle’s Law of Identity is that reality is absolute and can be understood through inductive and deductive reasoning. Because reality is absolute, and reasoning is the means by which we understand reality, it follows that reasoning is equally absolute. Once we have this rational foundation, we move on applying reasoning and understanding to morality. Therefore, atheism and objective morality are both derived from the same rich rational philosophical background.Responding to ProPro spends a rather unnecessary amount of characters on proving objective morality’s existence for his flawed syllogism. However, according to the resolution, Pro’s BOP is to prove that Objective Morality is a causal factor making atheism improbable, rendering his effort in Proposition 1 unnecessary. Proposition 2 is the only necessary step, as it is supposed to link Objective Morality and Atheism.He then makes a fatal flaw in his reasoning by introducing the non sequitur: “If atheism is true, I presume that there is no transcendent cause of the universe (intentional or otherwise), and hence, there is no underlying purpose to physical reality.”Despite the many flaws incurred in that one sentence, the basic non sequitur is that removing a transcendent cause of the universe does not, therefore, make life lose its purpose. Simply insisting, as the religious do, that a supernatural being has a purpose for their lives, does not magically imbue their lives with purpose and meaning. So God or no God, if life is to be really meaningful it must be so in a way which speaks to our own projects, needs, or desires and not just the purposes of whatever or whoever created us. The ability we possess to choose our own purposes and goals, to become the authors of our own meaning, and to do so in a limited human life make the process in and of itself meaningful, even more meaningful than thinking your purpose is delegated from a top-down directive which is the essence of totalitarianism. Earthly North Korea has led to the misfortunes of millions and a destruction in the meaning of life, so a Celestial North Korea doesn’t logically produce meaning or purpose either. Choosing one’s destiny is what brings purpose to one’s life. Amateurs may construe this as a subjective morality, but in the case of purpose and meaning, matters of morality need not enter. An Objective Morality that governs rational persons does not require a homogeneous populace complying with top down directives. And conflating objective morality with one’s purpose is bound to encounter fallacious and erroneous reasoning.After spending a great deal of time in Proposition 1 telling us that “I understand objective morality to include facts about what people should do, and facts about what is right/wrong, good/bad, which are independent of what people believe them to be” and giving us prima facie reasons why that is true, Pro then states “there is prima facie reason for atheism being unable to account for the existence of moral facts.” He arrived at facts-based morality through secular means, now claims that secular beliefs cannot jive with Objective Morality. This is an inherent contradiction in my opponent’s case. As I have stated, the background for Objective Morality and atheism is philosophical rationalism, allowing them to peacefully coexist. Furthermore, science has started to unlock ways to determine human values (moral facts), which transition toward Objective Morality as mentioned in The Moral Landscape. ConclusionEven if my opponent proved that Objective Morality and Atheism don’t really go together (which he didn’t and is logically indefensible due to their philosophical backgrounds), he still wouldn’t have upheld his BOP that Objective Morality makes Atheism improbable.My opponent set the rounds to 60 minutes, so this will be my last debate round as it is 4:08 am. Vote Pro on conduct and I urge you to vote Con on arguments for the previously stated reasons. Thank you :D[1] http://books.google.com...[2] Atheism: A Very Short Introduction, Julian Baggini, 2003