Hey, Atheists...

[Hans Blaster]

No, I didn't say that, and I'm rather tiring of you continuing with that assertion. Please stop. I already know about the history and diversity of thought that can be found among centuries worth [millennias worth, really] of atheists and skeptics.

And yet you refer to at as a "claim" that "Atheism" isn't worldview.

From ALL of the books and sources I have on atheism, I'm already quite aware of the epistemic claim among atheists that atheism isn't a worldview.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

"informed consent", "minimization of harm", and "personal autonomy" Well that sounds like a foundation that most people could agree on with the realization that sometimes one principle clashes with the other. Then I guess we need a process to deal with the clashes.

The problem here, though, is that "informed consent" is very difficult to fully come by [think of the figure of Eve here] and consent shouldn't be seen as the crème de la crème of ethical qualifications for human morality. If anything, it's merely the first step and anyone who thinks it stops there with that and only that is shortsighted and in need of lessons in critical thinking and ethics.

 

[Hans Blaster]

"informed consent", "minimization of harm", and "personal autonomy" Well that sounds like a foundation that most people could agree on with the realization that sometimes one principle clashes with the other. Then I guess we need a process to deal with the clashes.

I think it is called "discussion". That's why situational ethics is so much more interesting than all of this talk about morality and moral frameworks.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The problem here, though, is that "informed consent" is very difficult to fully come by [think of the figure of Eve here] and consent shouldn't be seen as the crème de la crème of ethical qualifications for human morality.

Which is why I didn't elevate it or any other such thing to a end all, be all, principle. I only listed a few things I value in ethics. That particular item started as one more focused on sexual ethics, but I realized there are other applications if phrased in that more general manner.

I have checked boxes on forms that I wouldn't use any human or animal subjects (as I rarely if ever conduct experiments on graduate students), so I haven't had to prepare any documents about providing informed consent to my subjects.

If anything, it's merely the first step and anyone who thinks it stops there with that and only that is shortsighted and in need of lessons in critical thinking and ethics.

 

[zippy2006]

Maybe the point of my asking is to help clarify a non Biblical foundation for public norms.
Do we have an innate moral compass?

There are different questions here:

1. Is there an objective (non-relative) source for morality?
2. If so, does that source require religion?
3. If the answers to these two questions are yes/no, then there is a non-religious foundation for morality and law in pluralistic societies.

The attendant question has to do with levels of depth. One could find a random atheist who believes in objective morality, like Peter Singer, and assume that the three questions have been answered. But this ignores the fact that an atheist in the U.S. and an atheist in Iran have radically different moral beliefs, and that this apparently has everything to do with religion.

How do we approach law in pluralistic societies? The general approach is social contract and a form of majoritarianism that flows out of that. Is this approach to law morally normative? No. Is there an approach to law that would be morally normative? This is where theories of natural law come in. Natural law is said to be the layer of morality that is common to all humans in virtue of their rationality. And then one can still go on to debate whether that natural law is implanted by God or not, but either way it is supposed to be a natural norm.

For Catholics natural law is normative for non-believers in a way that revealed law is not. For example, one could punish an atheist for theft but not for sacrilege. The transgression of sacrilege requires knowledge that the object was sacred, at least in a subjective sense.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I think it is called "discussion". That's why situational ethics is so much more interesting than all of this talk about morality and moral frameworks.

But without a framework the discussion has no boundaries or guiding principles. Even with a framework it can be difficult to have productive discussion.

I have come to appreciate Narrative ethics. The Ethical Force of Stories: Narrative Ethics and Beyond

 

[Hans Blaster]

But without a framework the discussion has no boundaries or guiding principles. Even with a framework it can be difficult to have productive discussion.

I have come to appreciate Narrative ethics. The Ethical Force of Stories: Narrative Ethics and Beyond

At this point I'm not sure what we are even talking about. I thought all of this "framework" business was about moral principles or preferences. Now it feels like you are talking about some procedure for working out conflicts among principles.

 

[Bradskii]

There are different questions here:

1. Is there an objective (non-relative) source for morality?

Yes, it's objective facts about the world.

If I shoot you, you'll be dead. That's an objective fact. Should I shoot you is a moral question and I will use that objective fact (you'll be dead) as one of the very many objective facts that are relevant to the act to personally decide if it's the right thing to do.

 

[Injeun]

"It's all cosplay," you say.

...........ok then. Are are you inferring here that ALL of the academic and scholarly sources which have informed me of my own understanding of both Christianity and Atheism (and science) are corrupt and erroneous and therefore useless and unreal?????????????

Bible based religion, which has come to be know by tradition as Christianity, isn't real. It's an attempt to reflect the bible or create an image from it. It isn't the advancement of Gods work. It merely repeats the past, over and over, by tens of thousands of different denominations, each with their own take on it, like actors with their scripts. Each putting his own spin on it. As a result, it is tens of thousands of different gospels, Christs, and Gods. So if the bible is holy, then that which sits atop it isn't, because the bible teaches one gospel, one Christ, and one God, not tens of thousands. So to call it Christianity as if it were united in Christ when it is clearly divided from top to bottom is to place the souls of men in jeopardy, captive to deceit. Surely, misleading and entrapping men isn't the work of God. So yes, all of bible based religion is cosplay at best.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Bible based religion, which has come to be know by tradition as Christianity, isn't real. It's an attempt to reflect the bible or create an image from it. It isn't the advancement of Gods work. It merely repeats the past, over and over, by tens of thousands of different denominations, each with their own take on it, like actors with their scripts. Each putting his own spin on it. As a result, it is tens of thousands of different gospels, Christs, and Gods. So if the bible is holy, then that which sits atop it isn't, because the bible teaches one gospel, one Christ, and one God, not tens of thousands. So to call it Christianity as if it were united in Christ when it is clearly divided from top to bottom is to place the souls of men in jeopardy, captive to deceit. Surely, misleading and entrapping men isn't the work of God. So yes, all of bible based religion is cosplay at best.

And what is your religion? Not cosplay??

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Bible based religion, which has come to be know by tradition as Christianity, isn't real. It's an attempt to reflect the bible or create an image from it. It isn't the advancement of Gods work. It merely repeats the past, over and over, by tens of thousands of different denominations, each with their own take on it, like actors with their scripts. Each putting his own spin on it. As a result, it is tens of thousands of different gospels, Christs, and Gods. So if the bible is holy, then that which sits atop it isn't, because the bible teaches one gospel, one Christ, and one God, not tens of thousands. So to call it Christianity as if it were united in Christ when it is clearly divided from top to bottom is to place the souls of men in jeopardy, captive to deceit. Surely, misleading and entrapping men isn't the work of God. So yes, all of bible based religion is cosplay at best.

What you see as "division" is better viewed as diversity and creativity of God's own expression. There are good and holy people in every denomination.

 

[Injeun]

The Bible can be, and will always be, built upon in 9 billion different ways. Why? Because no one can agree on what the 'official' praxis is where hermeneutics and biblical exegesis and the nature of revelation are concerned.

I know one thing----mormonism doesn't have anything to crow about in either scholarly or moral (or spiritual) superiority over any other Christian sect. And neither do athiests.

According to what benchmark? Bible based religion is empty. All it has is the bible to which it is completely at odds, as well as with itself with tens of thousands of different gospels, Christs and Gods. There is only one God, Christ, and gospel, man. The LDS Church teaches one gospel, one Christ, and one God throughout its membership. It is at odds with or contradictory to nothing other than bible based religion which is clearly fake, lost and foundationless.

 

[Injeun]

And what is your religion? Not cosplay??

It is the restoration of Gods true Church, by God and his angels, thru Joseph Smith. The only way to know of its truth is from God himself, via his spirit.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

According to what benchmark? Bible based religion is empty. All it has is the bible to which it is completely at odds, as well as with itself with tens of thousands of different gospels, Christs and Gods. There is only one God, Christ, and gospel, man. The LDS Church teaches one gospel, one Christ, and one God throughout its membership. It is at odds with or contradictory to nothing other than bible based religion which is clearly fake, lost and foundationless.

Oh,......puh-lease. You're right that various Christians and communities have at times had some erroneous or negligent, not to mention less than scholarly, interpretations and applications of the Christian Tradition (which came before the New Testament), but this isn't to say that the Traditional Trinitarian doctrine is erroneous.

So, unless you think you can "take me" in an academic level debate, I'd back off. Your mormonism has nothing in it by which to crow about.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It is the restoration of Gods true Church, by God and his angels, thru Joseph Smith. The only way to know of its truth is from God himself, via his spirit.

Spare me the hubris. I've been in a church in the past claiming something similar; in fact, ALL Christian denominations make their own peculiar claim to original Apostolic Authority in some form or fashion. So obviously, authenticity of any one person's beliefs about Jesus Christ is going to be based on much deeper discussions and discernment than just upon the sole issue of "apostolic authority."

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

At this point I'm not sure what we are even talking about. I thought all of this "framework" business was about moral principles or preferences. Now it feels like you are talking about some procedure for working out conflicts among principles.

Well, I think often we cannot agree on moral principles or how to apply them. So I think another process is needed.

But OP seeks a non-religious framework most could agree with.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Well, I think often we cannot agree on moral principles or how to apply them. So I think another process is needed.

But OP seeks a non-religious framework most could agree with.

I think you are going to have to define "framework" so that we can understand what you mean.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I think you are going to have to define "framework" so that we can understand what you mean.

Criteria, guiding principles other than the Bible says so.

from OP
How about we talk about a non religious source of morality? Religious people have their scripture that they can claim as foundational (even though they will disagree on how to interpret). But what golden rule do you use? something like categorical imperative? utilitarianism? How do you decide what laws are needed?

 

[Injeun]

What you see as "division" is better viewed as diversity and creativity of God's own expression. There are good and holy people in every denomination.

There are good people everywhere. But it doesn't qualify their philosophy, opinion, or religion. There are no holy people in bible based religion, which is essentially a hoax by the character of its own existence, in that it is contrary to itself with its legions of gospels and to the bible on which it is founded because it teaches one gospel.. So while God lives and the bible is true. Bible based religion is the efforts of men to resurrect from its pages that which has ended.

By their own admission they say that Gods work is done, and that he will say and do no more. So they declare the bible to be holy, and holier still as time goes on because it is all there is. But if it is so ever more holy, then why is it held in hands of sinful men. The fact is that the bible is just a record, words on paper, about Gods relationship with his people and they with him.

Christianity parrots those words because it doesn't know God, and has no relationship with him nor he with it to speak of. It is a dead end. This is why they say that God will say and do no more. It is a confession of unbelief and estrangement, as if it were a proclamation from God. So clearly they esteem themselves to be God.

 

[Injeun]

Spare me the hubris. I've been in a church in the past claiming something similar; in fact, ALL Christian denominations make their own peculiar claim to original Apostolic Authority in some form or fashion. So obviously, authenticity of any one person's beliefs about Jesus Christ is going to be based on much deeper discussions and discernment than just upon the sole issue of "apostolic authority."

I told you the truth. And you call it hubris. There is no apostolic authority from the pages of a book. It can only come from God. One can no more claim authority than elect oneself to Gods service and thereby dispossess God of his free agency, were that possible. Yet it is the way of bible based religion and the presumptuousness in the hearts of men. So what they make is apart from God, an image of God. Which is pretty much an anti God.