There is simply no secular basis for morality. — Ram

Might be nice if you defined morality, at least for your current purpose.

Most of the world's religions hold at least a few ethical constraints in common. And of those, most predate current religions. How do you account for that? I suggest you think before you answer.

Bit of a troll post, but sure I'll bite, there is no objective morality. And inventing a basis doesn't make it any more objective.

So where does that leave us? That people will have different opinions on morals, and that we need to find ways to agree on certain moral rules as a community, so we can get along.

But theists will presumably have a problem with this because they know objective morality, and so that is above any agreement on the matter. (This isn't the case by the way if you know a bit about Christian history and how much popes have changed 'objective morality' over the years.)

You probably think this is a good argument, but from the perspective of an atheist its actually the opposite, because you deny anyone to have a different opinion then the subjective one you have... and refuse to enter into dialogue about what we can agree on as a community.

I could make a parodic post just like this one that insults theists, shows videos of theists saying inconsistent things with gotchya type arguments (and then cuts them off), and make assertions like "theistic morality is ALL subjective because it is simply made up from scratch, which is why different religions believe in different "objective" moralities".

How would you respond?

You would probably argue that your own religion is the objectively true religion, that there is plenty of "evidence" supporting it, and that anyone who insults your personal worldview is just biased hater who doesn't actually understand it.

If you would actually like to have an argument about moral foundations, I would be quite interested.

To begin, try and submit a single universally true and objective moral claim, and then I'll actually have something to attack.

If you would like something to actually attack, then I submit that the foundation for objective morality is shared values. When two individuals share common goals and values (or have goals which do not interfere with each other), then they can come to objectively beneficial moral agreements that preserve and promote those values. The desire to go on living is a nearly universally shared value among humans, and is one of the most important points of negotiation in our moral agreements. The desire to be free from oppression, and the freedom to pursue happiness are two other nearly universally shared human values, and like it or not, this is where morality ought to come from.

Moral judgments and moral behavior are the product of moral beliefs. This is true irrespective of whether or not "objective moral values" (OMVs) exist outside of humanity.

Let's assume OMVs exist. How do you know what they are? How do you know your moral beliefs are true? If you can't, then how do you know they exist?

I've found incredible rhetorical and persuasive success by appealing to NUMVs (nearly universal moral values). To continue living, to be free from oppression, to be free to pursue happiness, etc... Moral agreements between agents with shared moral values are objectively true in the same sense that a good strategy is objectively likely to lead to victory.

VagabondSpectre
1.1k
I could make a parodic post just like this one that insults theists, shows videos of theists saying inconsistent things with gotchya type arguments (and then cuts them off), and make assertions like "theistic morality is ALL subjective because it is simply made up from scratch, which is why different religions believe in different "objective" moralities".

How would you respond?

You would probably argue that your own religion is the objectively true religion, that there is plenty of "evidence" supporting it, and that anyone who insults your personal worldview is just biased hater who doesn't actually understand it.

If you would actually like to have an argument about moral foundations, I would be quite interested.

To begin, try and submit a single universally true and objective moral claim, and then I'll actually have something to attack.

If you would like something to actually attack, then I submit that the foundation for objective morality is shared values. When two individuals share common goals and values (or have goals which do not interfere with each other), then they can come to objectively beneficial moral agreements that preserve and promote those values. The desire to go on living is a nearly universally shared value among humans, and is one of the most important points of negotiation in our moral agreements. The desire to be free from oppression, and the freedom to pursue happiness are two other nearly universally shared human values, and like it or not, this is where morality ought to come from. — VagabondSpectre

Hm. Okay.

Islam, Christianity and Judaism.... actually, insha'Allah I'll leave out Judaism... I don't know too much about Judaism.....

but we look at Islam and Christianity.

Islam is against adultery, lying, stealing, sex outside of marriage, etc.
Christianity too.

Islam and Christianity pretty much agree on a whole lot. A lot of people say pretty much all the religions are pretty much the same. I don't say all religions are the same- but with Islam and Christianity there is a lot in common. A lot of the teachings point in the same direction. The big dispute between Islam and Christianity is Islam says Jesus (PBUH) was a Prophet, whereas Christianity (blasphemously) believes he is God.

As far as morals...... they teach a lot of the same stuff. Islam believes in Tawheed, Christianity tends to believe in the Trinity..... both claim to be monotheistic..... so I think the dispute is in how monotheism actually should be implemented. But as far as accepting that monotheism is the end- I think both agree. Athough Christianity, unfortunately, is subverted and estranged from true monotheism. God is One! But anyways, the religions have similarities.

I've found incredible rhetorical and persuasive success by appealing to NUMVs (nearly universal moral values). To continue living, to be free from oppression, to be free to pursue happiness, etc... Moral agreements between agents with shared moral values are objectively true in the same sense that a good strategy is objectively likely to lead to victory. — VagabondSpectre

Let's see. You posit as alleged NUMV- desire to go on living, pursuing happiness, being free from oppression.

Firstly, I have a completely different view of human life. I regard certain types of death as desirable. I don't see death as you do.

Whether you are Muslim or Christian- you should be willing to die for what you believe in. My hope is that Allah will grant me a good death. For example, if I die defending my family or if I die while in Mecca- these are good deaths. I hope fervently for a good death.

For a Christian, for example- suppose the AntiChrist described in Revelation arrives and Christians have to die for their religion...... as a Muslim or a Christian, you should be willing to die for your beliefs. Therefore life is not the ultimate goal. You should not be afraid of death.

I don't find the thing about continuing living- I don't find it universal or even desirable. At any moment's notice, you (if you believe in God) should be prepared to give your life for what you believe.

Happiness? I don't care about happiness. Happiness is in Jannah (heaven).

This life is.... difficult. Forget happiness. Should you attain happiness in this life (which I sort of doubt).... Masha'Allah. Should you not attain it in this life..... it is what it is.

Forget happiness and self-preservation. It is destined that we shall die and happiness in this world is not the goal. The goal is Jannah- to attain Paradise.

Okay, the third thing- freedom from oppression.

I doubt you have the same understanding of oppression I have. We are not driven by the same motives. I want to serve Allah, attain Jannah and receive Allah's forgiveness for my sins.

We are simply not driven by the same considerations- totally different worlds. I might use periods at the end of my sentences and you might do the same and we both might have two legs and two arms but we are very different and we are not driven by the same values and presuppositions.

Might be nice if you defined morality, at least for your current purpose.

Most of the world's religions hold at least a few ethical constraints in common. And of those, most predate current religions. How do you account for that? I suggest you think before you answer. — tim wood

Actually, this is very easy.

Knowledge of right and wrong are innate. Humans are born knowing right and wrong.

Islam is the innate religion- Alhamdulilaah! So of course elements of what Islam teaches can be found in religious traditions across in the world. Not only is that not surprising but predictable given what Islam teaches about itself.

As far as defining morality.... I would say morality is "right and wrong". Knowledge of morality I think is knowing right and wrong. But I'm not a dictionary.

Bit of a troll post, but sure I'll bite, there is no objective morality. And inventing a basis doesn't make it any more objective.

So where does that leave us? That people will have different opinions on morals, and that we need to find ways to agree on certain moral rules as a community, so we can get along.

But theists will presumably have a problem with this because they know objective morality, and so that is above any agreement on the matter. (This isn't the case by the way if you know a bit about Christian history and how much popes have changed 'objective morality' over the years.)

You probably think this is a good argument, but from the perspective of an atheist its actually the opposite, because you deny anyone to have a different opinion then the subjective one you have... and refuse to enter into dialogue about what we can agree on as a community. — ChatteringMonkey

Non-objective morality is no morality. It translates to "I can do whatever I want".



The fact is a moral relativist will still get upset if you grab their wallet.

Also, morality isn't determined by what a pope says.

Now as far as me probably thinking this is a good argument.... a good argument for what????

It is obvious that there is no secular basis for morality. X = X. It means itself.

I don't think it necessarily disproves atheism. There is no secular basis for morality means there is no secular basis for morality.

If I was an atheist and I was being honest I think I would agree and say it is a tragic but necessary aspect of accepting the reality of our existence.

Knowledge of right and wrong are innate. Humans are born knowing right and wrong. — Ram

That contradicts your hypothesis that religion is necessary to ground morality.

That contradicts your hypothesis that religion is necessary to ground morality. — Janus

Does it? Let me look at it. Ahem. Let's see.

Knowledge of right and wrong are innate. Humans are born knowing right and wrong. — Ram

That contradicts your hypothesis that religion is necessary to ground morality. — Janus

Ah.

There is no contradiction. Humans are born believing in God. Maybe you assume people are static. However, people are changing.

Babies are born pure and then corrupted.

I cannot see how it is possible to "believe in God" without possessing linguistic ability; so humans cannot be born believing in God. Maybe it could be argued that humans are born with an innate sense of the divine or of oneness, but that is something else. Also, "believing in God" takes many forms.

You say babies are "born pure and then corrupted". In one sense that may be true. In another sense, it could be said that babies are born utterly selfish and then (hopefully) civilized such that they become capable of considering others.

I cannot see how it is possible to "believe in God" without possessing linguistic ability; so humans cannot be born believing in God. Maybe it could be argued that humans are born with an innate sense of the divine or of oneness, but that is something else. Also, "believing in God" takes many forms.

You say babies are "born pure and then corrupted". In one sense that may be true. In another sense, it could be said that babies are born utterly selfish and then (hopefully) civilized such that they become capable of considering others. — Janus

Well maybe you cannot see how it is possible that babies are born believing in God. However, nevertheless it is true. Babies are born as believers. Babies are born pure. Then corrupted.

Abu Hurairah reported the Messenger of Allah (May peace be upon him) as saying :

Every child is born on Islam, but his parents make him a Jew and a Christian, just as a beast is born whole. Do you find some among them (born) maimed? The people asked : Messenger of Allah! What do you think about the one who died while he was young? He replied : Allah knows best what he was going to do.

https://sunnah.com/abudawud/42/119

A moral life is the most pleasurable, most enjoyable, contains the greatest longevity, the least likelihood of disease, illness, depression, the best sex, the tastiest foods, the greatest books and the best of friendships.... and it even avoids the immoral necessity for personal self serving God constructs.

The moral life is entirely secular.

Islam is against adultery, lying, stealing, sex outside of marriage, etc.
Christianity too. — Ram

In so far as adultery is a form of lying, I also condemn it, but what of a woman who has fled from/escaped an arranged marriage and found love elsewhere? Technically she would still be married to her former husband and would be committing adultery. Should she return to her original husband because of the sacredness of marital unions? What about consensual open marriages?

Is it a sin to steal for basic sustenance? Should a parent be punished if stealing food was their only means of feeding their children?

Is it always a sin to lie? What if you have to tell a lie in order to save a life?

The truth of whether or not it is moral to do these things changes with circumstance, but I understand the gist of these laws. Unless there is good justification to do otherwise, we should not be lying to, stealing from, or killing one another. But these aren't hard-to-come-by moral positions; everybody already intuitively understands that being free from theft, deception, and murder is desirable; we never needed religion to convince people that we should have a society where theft and murder are forbidden, even a child can figure that out.

What religions disagree about is much more interesting and much more consequential. Do we pray to Jesus or don't we? What day is Sabbath? Which religion should control the holy sites in Palestine/Israel? Even within any one of the three Abrahamic faiths there is widespread disagreement about how we should live. Is scripture literal or metaphor? Should we be paying tithes to a central establishment or is faith about having a personal relationship with god? Should we each make our own interpretations of scripture or should we listen to the religious authority figures who know better?

The above examples apply to all three religions but here are some more specific ones: Do we do as the prophet did or do we do what the prophet said to do? (and if so, what did the prophet actually do, and what did he actually tell us to do?). Who is the rightful Caliph? Do we really need the pope and does the communal wine/wafer actually turn into the blood and flesh of Christ? With what level of orthodoxy does one need to uphold the old laws? Is it still a sin to pick up sticks on the sabbath "to do work"?. Is pressing a button an equivalent to work and can we get around that law with some other mechanism? What should the penalty for heresy/apostasy be? Is ex-communication necessary? or worse?

There are no obvious answers to these questions, and depending on who you ask you might find people ready to alter the course of their life, even die, to ensure that their answer reigns supreme.

The Abrahamic religions might agree on the basic and easy stuff, but what's left has been enough to turn each of them into disparate factions who all fight among themselves. Meanwhile the world isn;t getting any better...

Whether you are Muslim or Christian- you should be willing to die for what you believe in. My hope is that Allah will grant me a good death. For example, if I die defending my family or if I die while in Mecca- these are good deaths. I hope fervently for a good death. — Ram

So when you enter Mecca you hope that you suddenly die by accident?

Why?

Free ticket to paradise?

Do you hope that your family is attacked so that you can die defending them? I don't get it. It's possible to have preferences about how we die but still not hope or wish to actually die.

For a Christian, for example- suppose the AntiChrist described in Revelation arrives and Christians have to die for their religion...... as a Muslim or a Christian, you should be willing to die for your beliefs. Therefore life is not the ultimate goal. You should not be afraid of death. — Ram

I am afraid of death though, especially because I don't believe in heaven.

I don't find the thing about continuing living- I don't find it universal or even desirable. At any moment's notice, you (if you believe in God) should be prepared to give your life for what you believe. — Ram

Why? Because you think you're not actually dying, just transitioning to a better afterlife...

What if you're wrong?

Happiness? I don't care about happiness. Happiness is in Jannah (heaven). — Ram

You sure do seem to care about happiness then... If Jannah doesn't exist and instead of paradise you just get destroyed, are you still so willing to accept an early death? Please be honest with yourself.

Forget happiness and self-preservation. It is destined that we shall die and happiness in this world is not the goal. The goal is Jannah- to attain Paradise. — Ram

Jannah is a metaphor for good behavior in this life leading to rewards in... this life...

There is no proof that heaven or hell or angels and demons actually exist, and different cultures have wildly different ideas about these sorts of things...

You had me at don't steal...

I am with you at don't kill...

"Be prepared to accept death at any moment because Janna is the goal", to me, sounds delusional, and you've completely lost me...

I doubt you have the same understanding of oppression I have. We are not driven by the same motives. I want to serve Allah, attain Jannah and receive Allah's forgiveness for my sins.

We are simply not driven by the same considerations- totally different worlds. I might use periods at the end of my sentences and you might do the same and we both might have two legs and two arms but we are very different and we are not driven by the same values and presuppositions. — Ram

You don't want to be happy? You don't want to go on living? You don't want to be free from oppression?

How pernicious must a set of beliefs be to get you to embrace death and apocalypse over admitting that there is value in this life beyond being a test for an imaginary next life?

You provide no argument just more assertion. I see no reason to take your word for it. Also, you should be careful as the moderators do not consider this site should be allowed to be used as an organ for proselytizing, which seems to be what you are doing.

Children are all born in Islam??? What kind of totalitarian mindset on meth claims the child of other people for his own? :down:

A moral life is the most pleasurable, most enjoyable, contains the greatest longevity, the least likelihood of disease, illness, depression, the best sex, the tastiest foods, the greatest books and the best of friendships.... and it even avoids the immoral necessity for personal self serving God constructs.

The moral life is entirely secular. — Marcus de Brun

Would you happen to be related to Marquis de Sade?

In so far as adultery is a form of lying, I also condemn it, — VagabondSpectre

It's not "a form of lying" in an 'open' marriage.

You provide no argument just more assertion. I see no reason to take your word for it. Also, you should be careful as the moderators do not consider this site should be allowed to be used as an organ for proselytizing, which seems to be what you are doing. — Janus

Why should I take your word for it?

I assert my beliefs, others assert theirs. Such is life. If my beliefs are a problem for the mods, so be it.

Such is life. — Ram

Perhaps, but such is not philosophy. You are expected to offer argumentation to support your beliefs.

Right you are! (i added it to my post!)

A moral life is the most pleasurable, most enjoyable, contains the greatest longevity, the least likelihood of disease, illness, depression, the best sex, the tastiest foods, the greatest books and the best of friendships.... and it even avoids the immoral necessity for personal self serving God constructs.

The moral life is entirely secular. — Marcus de Brun

I agree entirely. It's the secular life for me!

I provided some argument for my belief that children cannot be born believing in God; that is the difference between your approach and mine.
If your proselytizing is a problem for the mods you will likely be banned. If that didn't matter to you then I guess it just wouldn't matter.

:cool:

I am afraid of death though — VagabondSpectre

I'm not.

"Be prepared to accept death at any moment because Janna is the goal", to me, sounds delusional, and you've completely lost me... — VagabondSpectre

Sounds delusional? Don't you have any amount of something within you which tells you that you should be prepared to sacrifice yourself for something bigger than yourself?

You don't want to be happy? You don't want to go on living? You
don't want to be free from oppression?

How pernicious must a set of beliefs be to get you to embrace death and apocalypse over admitting that there is value in this life beyond being a test for an imaginary next life? — VagabondSpectre

I have a completely different mindset than you do. I don't think life is about being happy.

This life is temporary and is a test. Oppression? It happens. It is what it is. I have a concept of oppression, probably you too. But what that concept consists of and what role it plays are very different I think in our two minds.

So when you enter Mecca you hope that you suddenly die by accident?

Why?

Free ticket to paradise?

Do you hope that your family is attacked so that you can die defending them? — VagabondSpectre

No, I didn't say any of that. I simply hope Allah grants me a good death.

You sure do seem to care about happiness then... If Jannah doesn't exist and instead of paradise you just get destroyed, are you still so willing to accept an early death? Please be honest with yourself. — VagabondSpectre

My thinking isn't your thinking. Jannah exists. I don't care about the alleged possibility that it doesn't exist. There is no possibility of it not existing, as it does exist. I don't care what atheists think. I am supposed to strive for Jannah so I hope for Jannah.

The Abrahamic religions might agree on the basic and easy stuff, but what's left has been enough to turn each of them into disparate and factions who all fight among themselves. Meanwhile the world isn;t getting any better... — VagabondSpectre

The world isn't run by pious religious people.

In so far as adultery is a form of lying, I also condemn it, but what of a woman who has fled from/escaped an arranged marriage and found love elsewhere? Technically she would still be married to her former husband and would be committing adultery. Should she return to her original husband because of the sacredness of marital unions? — VagabondSpectre

Divorce is allowed. Furthermore, I think women are allowed to say "no" to an arranged marriage.

I checked. Yes women are allowed to decline an arranged marriage. https://islamqa.info/en/60

The arranged marriage is more the family finds a suitor and it's sort of an offer. The woman isn't forced to marry the man. Islamically, it is up to her.

Is it always a sin to lie? What if you have to tell a lie in order to save a life? — VagabondSpectre

I think in certain extreme situations a person can lie.

Is it a sin to steal for basic sustenance? Should a parent be punished if stealing food was their only means of feeding their children? — VagabondSpectre

Is it a sin to steal out of hunger? I'm not sure. I think in the hypothetical example you describe it's not punished.

The truth of whether or not it is moral to do these things changes with circumstance, but I understand the gist of these laws. Unless there is good justification to do otherwise, we should not be lying to, stealing from, or killing one another. But these aren't hard-to-come-by moral positions; everybody already intuitively understands that being free from theft, deception, and murder is desirable; we never needed religion to convince people that we should have a society where theft and murder are forbidden, even a child can figure that out. — VagabondSpectre

I already get that there are extreme situations where for example a person might be compelled to do something. God is Forgiving and God understands things.

Furthermore, not everyone understands that stealing and murder is wrong. Many people don't believe "wrong" exists. People in general are not moral. Furthermore, morality covers not only murder and stealing but also sexuality. I think we probably have very different views in that department.

Perhaps, but such is not philosophy. You are expected to offer argumentation to support your beliefs. — Akanthinos

What one person considers a valid argument is not what another person considers a valid argument. I don't go by the same framework you go by

.

What religions disagree about is much more interesting and much more consequential. Do we pray to Jesus or don't we? What day is Sabbath? Which religion should control the holy sites in Palestine/Israel? Even within any one of the three Abrahamic faiths there is widespread disagreement about how we should live. Is scripture literal or metaphor? Should we be paying tithes to a central establishment or is faith about having a personal relationship with god? Should we each make our own interpretations of scripture or should we listen to the religious authority figures who know better?

The above examples apply to all three religions but here are some more specific ones: Do we do as the prophet did or do we do what they prophet said to do? (and if so, what did the prophet actually do, and what did he actually tell us to do?). Who is the rightful Caliph? Do we really need the pope and does the communal wine/wafer actually turn into the blood and flesh of Christ? With what level of orthodoxy does one need to uphold the old laws? Is it still a sin to pick up sticks on the sabbath "to do work"?. Is pressing a button an equivalent to work and can we get around that law with some other mechanism? What should the penalty for heresy/apostasy be? Is ex-communication necessary? or worse? — VagabondSpectre

Palestine should belong to the Palestinians.

I don't think there is a Caliphate right now. There was the Ottoman Caliphate and I think that was the last one for now.

I provided some argument for my belief that children cannot be born believing in God; that is the difference between your approach and mine.
If your proselytizing is a problem for the mods you will likely be banned. If that didn't matter to you then I guess it just wouldn't matter. — Janus

I provided an argument as well. My idea of a valid argument isn't yours.

You promote your position, I promote mine.

Incest in many places is moral BY GOD.

Incest is not 'wrong' or 'evil,' petty moralists... It is harmful and should be avoided!

Incest is not 'wrong' or 'evil,' petty moralists... It is harmful and should be avoided! — Blue Lux

Thank you for confirming what I've been saying about the atheistic position.

mhmmm.. and what percentage of muslim people are inbred?