Here is a syllogism:
I owe obedience to God.
God has commanded that I not steal.
Therefore I should not steal.
You can attack the premises but not the syllogism.
Your argument would be:
I should not hurt others.
Stealing hurts others.
Therefore I should not steal.
It is a good syllogism but doesn’t move the ball, so to speak, because the 1st premise is the important one to prove in the context of athiestic morality. Two Christians discussing syllogism 1 are in complete agreement on the premises. So in a Christian Sunday school there is a basis for discussing ethics and morality. In an athiest Sunday school there is no ultimate agreed upon premise to ground moral arguments upon and, in fact, the agreement is to toss out the only premise that works which is God. Athiest’s must create a shared premise but they are by definition rejecting the ultimate truth. The desire to find a reason to be good is a call to God.
No, my syllogism would be the one I provided. You can’t say I said something I didn’t say, demolish that, and then say because you demolished something I didn’t say my argument is invalid. *head spinning*