Elliott lesson 1 - "The Suicide Argument"

What can I say; I couldn't stay away from Elliott's blog. He's put up some even more idiotic arguments about various things, so, in a spirit of charity for which he is entirely unworthy (and because I'm often bored on the weekends) I've decided to present him with a series of lessons in logic, reason, and philosophical debate relating specifically to his arguments. These are based solely on my own knowledge of philosophy, which I admit is not comprehensive, but it's really only for fun; I'm sure he dismisses my comments - though I am equally sure his ego will not allow him to ignore them. Here's lesson 1:

The Suicide Argument – Lesson 1

P1: Atheists have to accept moral values are subjective

P2: If moral values are subjective, then every action is accepted by someone

P3: If every action is accepted by someone, then every action is accepted

P4: If every action is accepted, then there is no right or wrong

P5: If there is no right or wrong, then abolishing atheism all together is not wrong

T: Atheism is self defeating

Elliott – I’ve decided that, since I know you read these comments and I’m usually pretty bored on the weekends, I’m going to try to educate you in matters of philosophical debate by offering informed (I majored in Philosophy as an undergraduate with an A average and was offered Honours) criticism of your arguments in terms of both content and structure as and when I can.

For this one, this is just on an initial reading. You have failed to include any reference to context in relation to morality; this is vital in discussions of ethics as contextuality makes all the difference – for example, “killing babies is always wrong” can be shown to be contextually incorrect. This is most significant in relation to P2-4. Any first-year Philosophy student would have no trouble pulling this argument apart on that basis alone.

Furthermore, you have not made a convincing argument that morality is necessarily objective, which immediately undermines the first premise and therefore the entire argument. I’m afraid William Lane Craig’s contentions on this matter are very weak; I would strongly suggest you ditch them altogether. I would suggest either Kant or John Henry Newman as stronger authorities, although their arguments are not without their own problems.

I’ll work on it a little more and give a more thorough analysis at a later time.