Hey, Atheists...

[stevil]

Lol. Well according to the new realities where your identity can become something real in the world I can get some Furries dressed as pink unicorns. They will be real unicorns as they identify as unicorns and to say they are not is denying reality. So I will arrange them to fly to you on a local plane for the weekend lol.

But on a serious note we already have that level of evidence from NDE.

NDEs are just the brain/mind going through stress and weird stuff happens. Dreams, feelings of floating etc.
There is a story of a hospital somewhere which has a message on the rafters, in the operation room. You'd need to be floating and looking down to see it. Nobody claiming to have an NDE has been able to tell them what is written on the note.

But this is all beside the point.
You made a claim that consciousness can make things real, in reality.
You have a consciousness. Why can't you poof pink flying unicorns into existence? This should be trivial if what you are saying is true.

 

[BCP1928]

Yes and atheist have posted their beliefs about morality and that is it is based on naturalistic processes like evolution. No God required.

And God not ruled out, either.

But we also know this debate has been going on for decades and we have a lot of stuff written on it. From this we can derive some truths. That is its impossible for atheists to believe that there are objective morals beyond the naturalistic world and human ideas for morality based on naturalism.

Why do objective moral truths have to be beyond the naturalistic world?

Which is also materialism as naturalism is about the physical and quantifiable processes which cannot involve the supernatural or immaterial in the sense of beyond time and space.

On the other hand, you want your objective morals to be outside of objective reality.

So we can derive some logical truths about what atheists worldview is going to be within a general metaphysics which is naturalism. There will be variations within this but it will still fall within the naturalistic causes.

Because natural causes produce objective results.

Side note: Logical conclusions are not really "true" unless they can be verified emprically. You can do all the "logic" you want, but if you want to know what other people think, it's best just to ask them.

I have never heard of any religion or spiritual beliefs that did not involve morality. Thats the whole idea.

But I think your confusing what I am saying. I not saying the existence of God and morality are the same issue. That is obvious. Rather they are related issues which go hand in hand when it comes to objective morality.

Once you place morality beyond humans you have to envoke a moral law giver as morals are humanlike and not chemical reactions or physics.

But I do think you can be non religious of theistic and believe in a sort of human made god like pagan idols which is nature like the sun and moon. Or consciousness itself as its more detached from a specific god who is humanlike.

In this way the transcedent part of objective morality can be brought in without usings a specific god or God. Its always a bit more ambious like its appealing to a spirit or mysterious force somewhere in the universe.

You are the one who is invoking a transcendent moral lawgiver, You haven't even shown us that objective morals need to be transcendent.

 

[stevevw]

There is no special philosophy needed to not believe in something. The less plausible something is to personal experience, the less "philosophical commitment" to not believe in it. The mere fact of non-belief is not philosophy itself nor is it anything other than "nope, I don't believe in that". As such there is not world view of "atheism" (nor "secularism" if you insist on using it as a synonym) and no world view derived from it. Not believing in God didn't change my "philosophy of life".

But isn't not believing a belief in itself. Your not beliving theree is anything beyond the material world. Nothing beyond the naturalistic world that can account for morailty. I think when it comes to philosophical questions like morality or life after death or not these naturally bring in metaphysics and therefore philosophy.

Anyway you disagree. But heres the problem. Not everyone agrees with you on this and in fact the sciences actually support what I am saying. That even most atheists if not all have metaphysical beliefs beyond the material world of some sort. The most common is life after death. Some sort of metaphysical belief in born into us and is a natural part of being human.

An "objective morality" of the kind you want to use is either a property of the universe itself or of humans intrinsically. (You speak of the former below, so I'll wait until then.) "Property of the universe" seems rather unlikely (if not impossible). If these aren't good enough for "objective" then I guess there isn't such a thing after all.

Its not so much that these ideas are true but that its an attempt to ground objective morality in some non material phenomena or information or Mind that in inherent in the universe and everything. The important point is that its not your traditional religious approach.

But nonetheless an attempt to explain objective morality beyond the material. The point I was making was that this shows that as humans we know that there is some immaterial aspect to life and morality. Between the religions and non religious ideas the vast majority of people believe in something beyond the material.

"Material atheism" (not a thing, substitute "non-belief in supernatural beings") is not a philosophy or such. It is not trying to account for anything

It depends as there is soft and hard atheism. Do you believe that explaining realitry for an atheist is within the physical and naturalistic. When someone argues the case for a naturalistic reality over alternatives such as the immaterial or supernatural they are taking a philosophical position and not a scientific one. This is an epistemic claim that only naturalistic science can determine reality or morality. Its also an ontological one claim what reality is.

How is an instinctual morality a "worldview"?

The instinct or rather moral sense is not the worldview. The worldviews are formed because of our natural belief and moral sense. So humans will naturally come up with different ways to fill that void with all sorts of ideas from gods, a universal force or even superheros. Or naturalism itself.

Experimental evidence, including cross-cultural studies, suggests that three-year-old’s attribute super, god-like qualities to lots of different beings. Super-power, super-knowledge and super-perception seem to be default assumptions.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2008/nov/25/religion-children-god-belief

What twaddle.

You say its twaddle but I think I have gone through this before. What am I to do when I have one person telling me things like this.

Humans 'predisposed' to believe in gods and the afterlife
The studies (both analytical and empirical) conclude that humans are predisposed to believe in gods and an afterlife, and that both theology and atheism are reasoned responses to what is a basic impulse of the human mind. The studies demonstrate that people are natural 'dualists' finding it easy to conceive of the separation of the mind and the body.

Humans 'predisposed' to believe in gods and the afterlife

New research finds that humans have natural tendencies to believe in gods and an afterlife. Research suggests that people across many different cultures instinctively believe that some part of their mind, soul or spirit lives on after-death. The studies demonstrate that people are natural...

www.sciencedaily.com

Why almost everyone believes in an afterlife – even atheists
Most people hold curiously similar ideas about life after death, suggesting there is more to it than religion, fear or an inability to imagine not existing
Why almost everyone believes in an afterlife – even atheists

I'm glad you wil drop the notion of an "atheistic morality" in favor of better terminology.

Its a hard one. As I mentioned everyone has some metaphysical belief behind their position on morality. The most obvious I keep seeing is that as atheists don't believe in God or gods then automatically this brings morality within the naturalistic and not supernatural or immaterial.

Now thats not a coverall for all atheists as they may come up with some transcedent way to ground objective morality. But its reasonable to think that the naturalistic worldview doesn't influence how they see morality. Plus whatever that transcedent grounding will be its still cannot be reduced to the naturalistic.

There are several dimensions of labeling here that are not the same.

Secular/religious is one dimension. Religious morality is morality that comes from a religion. Secular is morality that does not come from a religion. Both are broad categories. (Christian morality is by definition "religious morality" as is Islamic morality.)

Objective/Subjective is another dimension. Objective morality isn't dependent on the opinions of any being. Subjective morality is subject to opinions of beings.

Other labels could be added that don't fall into these dimensions: various philosophies (humanist, objectivist) or geographies (Western, Chinese, etc.).

Suppose someone is in a humanisitic religion with a subjective morality. THen that morality would be Subjective, Religious, and Humanistic.

Its interesting that you list the two most obvious. Especially in saying "Secular is morality that does not come from a religion", and "Subjective morality is subject to opinions of beings". I'sn't this saying the same thing.

If religion is about belief in a transcendent being, a moral lawgiver then what is secular if it is not religion. The opposite is a non transcedent base and as moraility is about moral relationships this would mean human opinions as opposed to a transcendent moral being. Both secular and opinions of subjects are grounded in human opinion and religion and object are grounded in something transcedent of secular and human opinion.

I understand that secular could mean something transcedent like Sam Harris using science. But this doesn't equate as you can't get an 'is from and ought'. Anything deemed objective using naturalism cannot cross the explanatory gap.

I doubt that it could, but this isn't an argument about the existence objective morality.

I thought it was a given that it was about objective moraility. The OP made asked the question hey atheists whats your grounding for morality (objective basis). Religion has the scripture (or God/s) as foundational but what is the atheists foundation.

Straight away that brings in objective morality and therefore whether it exists.

 

[stevevw]

NDEs are just the brain/mind going through stress and weird stuff happens. Dreams, feelings of floating etc.

That you automatically fall into this typical response tells me your mind is already made up and not open and its more about belief than the evidence.

There is a story of a hospital somewhere which has a message on the rafters, in the operation room. You'd need to be floating and looking down to see it. Nobody claiming to have an NDE has been able to tell them what is written on the note.

This is not how it works. NDE may or may not go to where the signs are and may or may not even notice them as their point of attention. It doesn't work like that.

Apart from all the verified NDE and OBE I can cite I like to look at it a different way. There is definitely conscious activity going on when it shouldn't. Tests have proven this. Even showing that the activity is happening in the conscious regions but also the real lived area as opposed to dreams and imagination.

Secondly and I think this is the important part is that the experiencer rationally believes what happened was like everyday reality and even more so. Even to the point they never forget it like a real memory and their lives are completely changed forever.

There are 1,000s of these cases. Its the consistency regardless of culture or age and the details that make this different to dreams or delusions whch are usually muddled, forgetable and cause problems rather than such profound changes.

In other words you may say its an evolutionary by product. But whatever it is its real and happening as though these people believe its real like you and I sitting at our devices.

But this is all beside the point.
You made a claim that consciousness can make things real, in reality.
You have a consciousness. Why can't you poof pink flying unicorns into existence? This should be trivial if what you are saying is true.

Because once again thats not how it works. Even Christ said this that He will not perform miracles at the request of people because of their unbelief. Its not respecting the truth in the first place. So why should it be lowered to satisfy your unbelief. That would be defeating the whole purpose that these types of phenomena cannot be proven by scientific materialism.

But like I said its a paradigm and you live in a different one where the blinds are pulled down on this evdience because its not allowed in the first place. Not because of the evidence but because certain evidence is not allowed as a priori.

Perhaps if you were more open to opening those blinds you may begin to see that evidence. Not because anyone proved it empiracally but because your heart and mind became more open to it beforehand.

 

[Bradskii]

I thought it was a given that it was about objective moraility.

It isn't. Go back and have another look.

 

[stevevw]

And God not ruled out, either.

How do you mean God not ruled out. I thought that was one of the great revolutions that came out form Darwinsim that Dawkins likes to trumpet. That theres not need for God as everything can be explained in naturalistic terms through natural selection.

Isn't atheism ruling out belief in God. So say an atheist on this thread is argueing for a naturalistic basis for morality or reality is ruling out God. Because if they rule the supernatural a possibility then they could not claim that science is evidence for subjective morality or a naturalistic cause of reality. There would be possibilities science cannot include.

Why do objective moral truths have to be beyond the naturalistic world?

Because you can't get an 'ought from an is'. Thats the simplistic arguement but it is true. No one has been able to derive morality from anything naturalistically objective. Just like you can't get the experience of music from the physical brain.

You can get correlations of neural activity. Just like you can get correlations of behaviour and morality. But this doesn't address the nature of these things. Its qualitative, relational and experiential aspects.

If you say human wellbeing is the basis and human wellbeing can be measured scientifically you have just moved the subjectivity to what is wellbeing. This will happen with any determination made by subjective humans about morality.

Unlike 3rd person determinations like science which can detach itself from the subject and look at the physical world outside them and determine some truths or facts. The earth is a sphere and not flat for example despite the belief of flat earthers.

On the other hand, you want your objective morals to be outside of objective reality.

Yes and ground in a different kind of truth or law than physical ones. This seems fair in that science dominates the physical reality as to what it fundementally is. So why should science also be the arbitor of non physical reality as well. Even Galilao recognised that science was different to the other phenomena like the soul or belief in life after death and so forth.

Because natural causes produce objective results.

Yes and objective results or empiracle science is a particular worldview that fundemental reality is naturalistic and physical. So of course its going to find what it already claimed reality was like. But science can only measure that aspect of reality which is objective and physical and quantified.

It cannot measure the other phenomena that gives us knowledge about reality. Which is the non physically objective. In fact even science says that what we think is the objective physical world may be an illusion. Maybe some reflective interface of some deeper reality.

Side note: Logical conclusions are not really "true" unless they can be verified emprically. You can do all the "logic" you want, but if you want to know what other people think, it's best just to ask them.

LOgic can be self evidence. For example the logical principle of non-contradiction. We can know that a car cannot be in the parking lot and not in the parking lot at the same time. Without having to go and see for ourselves and test this.

So to with truth. There cannot be many truths but just one truth for a specific thing or aspect. If morality is about getting at something true then there cannot be many truths as to what that moral truth is. Otherwise its not morality but opinions or untethered statements about the world.

You are the one who is invoking a transcendent moral lawgiver, You haven't even shown us that objective morals need to be transcendent.

I think I have. Or at least have shown that objective morality cannot be explained by the naturalistic worldview because its a different kind of aspect of life that doesn't reduce to the naturalistic ie Humes is/ought problem and the 'Hard Problem of Consciousness'.

Yet morality demands an objective basis. We live like moraslity is objective. Like there is some unwritten law on our hearts or in the universe that causes all humans to sense and know these truth. I provide the science on this that we are born this way and naturally think this way.

Occamrs Razors points to the simpliest explanation. If it this is best fits and is explained by some transcedent basis and explanation then this is where we should be looking. Not the naturalistic explanations.

Whether there is a true moral lawgiver or its a new kind of non physical force its still transcedent of the naturalistic and materialistic worldview.

 

[Bradskii]

Yet morality demands an objective basis.

Maybe you could give us an example to show us what you mean (9).

 

[stevevw]

It isn't. Go back and have another look.

I have. The OP explained what the thread was about. The first post was asking what is the foundation of atheist morality. Foundation means the objective basis.

The second post clarided this further saying
"Maybe the point of my asking is to help clarify a non Biblical foundation for public norms" A non biblical foundation is an objective foundation as the bible claims an objective foundation for morality in Gods laws and Christs truth.

So the OP is looking for something similar that grounds atheist morality like a law of the universe, or manmade laws, or wellbeing being ect that is not grounded in humans themselves..

A link to secular ethics was included. This further explained argeist basis for morality. THough it seems the OP has linked atheism with secular ethics. But either way it seems everything the Wiki link mentions is about morality being subjective and relative as opposed to objective and beyond human opinion and naturalism ie

Secular ethics is a branch of moral philosophy in which ethics is based solely on human faculties such as logic, empathy, reason or moral intuition, and not derived from belief in supernatural revelation or guidance—a source of ethicsin many religions. Secular ethics refers to any ethical system that does not draw on the supernatural, and includes humanism, secularism and freethinking.

Many of these tenets are applied in the science of morality, the use of the scientific method to answer moral questions. Various thinkers have framed morality as questions of empirical truth to be explored in a scientific context. The science is related to ethical naturalism, a type of ethical realism.
Secular ethics - Wikipedia

That seems pretty well exactly what I described. So secular and atheist morality does not draw on supernaturalism (not just gods) and relies on naturalism (materialism).

So secular and atheist morality cannot appeal to foundations beyond the material natural word. Whereas religion and theists or immaterialist can draw on trandecent foundations like a moral lawgiver or even consciousness beyond brain.

I think the whole point was that human opinion and even religious belief is unrelaible and fallible so a foundation outside of human opinion is needed.

 

[stevevw]

Maybe you could give us an example to show us what you mean (9).

Well murder is wrong. Stealing is wrong. Morality is normative, meaning it has a right and wrong and not a grey area. Its either right or wrong.

You can have all sorts of opinions and views on it. But at the end of the day one is wrong and the other is right morallity. Thats exactly how we live out morality in reality.

 

[Jo555]

Well murder is wrong. Stealing is wrong. Morality is normative, meaning it has a right and wrong and not a grey area. Its either right or wrong.

You can have all sorts of opinions and views on it. But at the end of the day one is wrong and the other is right morallity. Thats exactly how we live out morality in reality.

Hi Steve.

Not sure if you are a Christian or not as I haven't gone through this thread, and learning the value in knowing that in this section, helps to know who speaks your language, but morality is not always clear.

As a Christian black and white does exists, in matters of the heart.

So if you hate your brother, you murdered him with no love in your heart for him. Some even say. "He's dead to me."

Jesus gave the example of king David and his troops taking of the set aside sacred food in the temple when they were hungry. Although in society that would be considered stealing, in Christianity that would not be considered stealing because it is first a matter of the heart. He didn't do it to cause harm.

And the scriptures do tell us to submit to the governing authorities because of their temp purpose in society, until God's love is made complete, so don't walk in a 7-11 and steal them potato chips if you are hungry, just saying, it is about what motivates us. What is in the heart.

Morals can help keep order and semblance in a society made up of many people with various backgrounds and beliefs, but it is no competition for the heart. The love of God alive in the heart is what counts and overcomes, speaking as a believer.

So, if you are a Christian, for clarity, the heart of the matter is always the matter if the heart.

Hope that helps some.

 

[stevevw]

Hi Steve.

Not sure if you are a Christian or not as I haven't gone through this thread, and learning the value in knowing that in this section, helps to know who speaks your language, but morality is not always clear.

Hi Jo555. I am a Christain as mentioned in my ID thingo.

As a Christian black and white does exists, in matters of the heart.

So if you hate your brother, you murdered him with no love in your heart for him. Some even say. "He's dead to me."

Jesus gave the example of king David and his troops taking of the set aside sacred food in the temple when they were hungry. Although in society that would be considered stealing, in Christianity that would not be considered stealing because it is first a matter of the heart. He didn't do it to cause harm.

I think society can reason that as ok as well. We can tell the difference between someone taking something for a greater purpose and someone taking something for a selfish or evil intent.

In fact studies show infants can tell the difference between bad acts such as punishing the bad guy to right a wrong and an intended bad act. This seems to be wired into us. Perhaps to do with empathy. But more than empathy. Kids have a heart felt response to injustice and bad treatment.

And the scriptures do tell us to submit to the governing authorities because of their temp purpose in society, until God's love is made complete, so don't walk in a 7-11 and steal them potato chips if you are hungry, just saying, it is about what motivates us. What is in the heart.

I agree, its our intentions. But that doesn't negate the law not to steal. It only qualifies peoples hearts as to whether they have broken that law. The law still stands and the fact that not everyone intends to steal doesn't change Gods law.

I am also not sure about Christ saying we should obey world governments no matter what. I think that was more about our civil duties to support the governments administration of society. But I don't think its right to support a dictator State thats harming people. I think California brought in a law where people could steal up to $900 worth of stuff and it was a misdemeanor. This caused a spike in shop lifting.

I am sure this harms people as it increases prices and insurances. But psychologically its sending a message that its ok to steal. People disrespect the property of other people and think they have a right to take it. I don't think people should support such government laws.

Morals can help keep order and semblance in a society made up of many people with various backgrounds and beliefs, but it is no competition for the heart. The love of God alive in the heart is what counts and overcomes, speaking as a believer.

I agree it starts in the heart. Change the heart and you change the person. Well its actually the spirit, that part of us that is our conscience.

But sometimes I think the love of God is setting the laws in place. They show us we are sinners and need salvation. This is what changes the heart. The love comes in that despite being sinners Christ died for us that we may be reborn with a new heart and mind.

So, if you are a Christian, for clarity, the heart of the matter is always the matter if the heart.

Hope that helps some.

Yes it does thankyou. That is the gospel as mentioned above and there is no judgement in that regardless of intentions or guilt. Sinners are accepted and in fact welcomed in coming to God.

 

[Jo555]

Hi Jo555. I am a Christain as mentioned in my ID thingo.

I think society can reason that as ok as well. We can tell the difference between someone taking something for a greater purpose and someone taking something for a selfish or evil intent.

In fact studies show infants can tell the difference between bad acts such as punishing the bad guy to right a wrong and an intended bad act. This seems to be wired into us. Perhaps to do with empathy. But more than empathy. Kids have a heart felt response to injustice and bad treatment.

I agree, its our intentions. But that doesn't negate the law not to steal. It only qualifies peoples hearts as to whether they have broken that law. The law still stands and the fact that not everyone intends to steal doesn't change Gods law.

I am also not sure about Christ saying we should obey world governments no matter what. I think that was more about our civil duties to support the governments administration of society. But I don't think its right to support a dictator State thats harming people. I think California brought in a law where people could steal up to $900 worth of stuff and it was a misdemeanor. This caused a spike in shop lifting.

I am sure this harms people as it increases prices and insurances. But psychologically its sending a message that its ok to steal. People disrespect the property of other people and think they have a right to take it. I don't think people should support such government laws.

I agree it starts in the heart. Change the heart and you change the person. Well its actually the spirit, that part of us that is our conscience.

But sometimes I think the love of God is setting the laws in place. They show us we are sinners and need salvation. This is what changes the heart. The love comes in that despite being sinners Christ died for us that we may be reborn with a new heart and mind.

Yes it does thankyou. That is the gospel as mentioned above and there is no judgement in that regardless of intentions or guilt. Sinners are accepted and in fact welcomed in coming to God.

Bit short on time now, but glad to see you speak my language in more ways than one. Although, I would have said, "Thingy".

Me thinks it isn't really called a thingo, but I never know anymore because lingos can be so diverse here.

Anyway, carry on ...

I'll check out what you said with more time.

Thanks bro!

 

[stevevw]

Bit short on time now, but glad to see you speak my language in more ways than one. Although, I would have said, "Thingy".

Me thinks it isn't really called a thingo, but I never know anymore because lingos can be so diverse here.

Well in Australia, that the land of Oz, everything has an 'o' put on the end of it lol. Like Robbo, Tomo, Daveo ah Daveo he's is a bit of a yobbo lol.

Anyway, carry on ...

I'll check out what you said with more time.

I meant to say. The paradox of the intentions of the heart. Just like the intentions towards a percieved wrong are all important. Christ was also pointing out that the intentions behind so called 'proclaiming the letter of the law' or virtue signalling in modern terms also revealed the true intention of the heart.

This was highlighted by the Pharisees who loudly proclaimed their adherence to the moral laws yet full of vipers and Christ pointing out that the first will be last and the last first.

 

[Hans Blaster]

But isn't not believing a belief in itself. Your not beliving theree is anything beyond the material world. Nothing beyond the naturalistic world that can account for morailty. I think when it comes to philosophical questions like morality or life after death or not these naturally bring in metaphysics and therefore philosophy.

Anyway you disagree. But heres the problem. Not everyone agrees with you on this and in fact the sciences actually support what I am saying. That even most atheists if not all have metaphysical beliefs beyond the material world of some sort. The most common is life after death. Some sort of metaphysical belief in born into us and is a natural part of being human.

Its not so much that these ideas are true but that its an attempt to ground objective morality in some non material phenomena or information or Mind that in inherent in the universe and everything. The important point is that its not your traditional religious approach.

But nonetheless an attempt to explain objective morality beyond the material. The point I was making was that this shows that as humans we know that there is some immaterial aspect to life and morality. Between the religions and non religious ideas the vast majority of people believe in something beyond the material.

It depends as there is soft and hard atheism. Do you believe that explaining realitry for an atheist is within the physical and naturalistic. When someone argues the case for a naturalistic reality over alternatives such as the immaterial or supernatural they are taking a philosophical position and not a scientific one. This is an epistemic claim that only naturalistic science can determine reality or morality. Its also an ontological one claim what reality is.

The instinct or rather moral sense is not the worldview. The worldviews are formed because of our natural belief and moral sense. So humans will naturally come up with different ways to fill that void with all sorts of ideas from gods, a universal force or even superheros. Or naturalism itself.

Experimental evidence, including cross-cultural studies, suggests that three-year-old’s attribute super, god-like qualities to lots of different beings. Super-power, super-knowledge and super-perception seem to be default assumptions.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2008/nov/25/religion-children-god-belief

You say its twaddle but I think I have gone through this before. What am I to do when I have one person telling me things like this.

Humans 'predisposed' to believe in gods and the afterlife
The studies (both analytical and empirical) conclude that humans are predisposed to believe in gods and an afterlife, and that both theology and atheism are reasoned responses to what is a basic impulse of the human mind. The studies demonstrate that people are natural 'dualists' finding it easy to conceive of the separation of the mind and the body.

Humans 'predisposed' to believe in gods and the afterlife

New research finds that humans have natural tendencies to believe in gods and an afterlife. Research suggests that people across many different cultures instinctively believe that some part of their mind, soul or spirit lives on after-death. The studies demonstrate that people are natural...

www.sciencedaily.com

Why almost everyone believes in an afterlife – even atheists
Most people hold curiously similar ideas about life after death, suggesting there is more to it than religion, fear or an inability to imagine not existing
Why almost everyone believes in an afterlife – even atheists

Its a hard one. As I mentioned everyone has some metaphysical belief behind their position on morality. The most obvious I keep seeing is that as atheists don't believe in God or gods then automatically this brings morality within the naturalistic and not supernatural or immaterial.

Now thats not a coverall for all atheists as they may come up with some transcedent way to ground objective morality. But its reasonable to think that the naturalistic worldview doesn't influence how they see morality. Plus whatever that transcedent grounding will be its still cannot be reduced to the naturalistic.

Its interesting that you list the two most obvious. Especially in saying "Secular is morality that does not come from a religion", and "Subjective morality is subject to opinions of beings". I'sn't this saying the same thing.

A whole sequence of responses where you toss out the premises of the things you are responding to and just pave right over them, usually changing the specific topic. It's like you pick a few words out of what was written and then construct a response based only on your interpretation of those terms with little to no regard for the context of the text or question you are responding to. Argh.

Now to reply to your mangling of "secular" and "objective"

If religion is about belief in a transcendent being, a moral lawgiver then what is secular if it is not religion.

Secular is literally "non-religious" that's what I just told you in the sentence you were replying to. Do you not read the things we post fully before replying? Do you think I am just using one of those "atheist definitions" (or whatever) that you can ignore because it comes from the wrong "worldview". This is extremely frustrating. Not even a counter definition based on a reference. Good Grief!

Let's go over it for the 49th time:

Secular (in the usage relative to this discussion, this board, and this topic) is an adjective describing things that are not religious. You can substitute "non-religious" every time you see "secular" in front of a noun.

Secular music = non-religious music (you know, the good stuff)
Secular lilterature = non-religious literature
Secular architecture = non-religious architecture (homes and office buildings etc, rather than churches)
Secular morality = non-religious morality.

The one thing SECULAR ABSOLUTELY IS NOT is "religion".

The opposite is a non transcedent base and as moraility is about moral relationships this would mean human opinions as opposed to a transcendent moral being. Both secular and opinions of subjects are grounded in human opinion and religion and object are grounded in something transcedent of secular and human opinion.

Secular is not a noun. This a mess tangled in your bad definition.

I understand that secular could mean something transcedent like Sam Harris using science.

Neither Sam Harris nor science is "transendent". "Secular" is not "something transcendent"; it is a label for thing that are non-religious.

But this doesn't equate as you can't get an 'is from and ought'. Anything deemed objective using naturalism cannot cross the explanatory gap.

The issue here is not the "is-ought' problem.

I thought it was a given that it was about objective moraility. The OP made asked the question hey atheists whats your grounding for morality (objective basis).

Both religious and non-religious people can have subjective (and if possible at all) objective bases for morality.

Religion has the scripture (or God/s) as foundational but what is the atheists foundation. Straight away that brings in objective morality and therefore whether it exists.

Scriptures and gods are not objective foundations, they are subjective. It is a subjective choice to select a religious text for the basis of one's morality is subjective choice. If a morality is truly based on instructions of a divine being, then that morality is a subjective position of that deity.

 

[Jo555]

Hi Jo555. I am a Christain as mentioned in my ID thingo.

I think society can reason that as ok as well. We can tell the difference between someone taking something for a greater purpose and someone taking something for a selfish or evil intent.

Found some time now.
Sure, in the first degree, second degree, third degree.

Or, the difference between negligence, passion, and intent.

Bible speaks of this too.

In fact studies show infants can tell the difference between bad acts such as punishing the bad guy to right a wrong and an intended bad act. This seems to be wired into us. Perhaps to do with empathy. But more than empathy. Kids have a heart felt response to injustice and bad treatment.

Romans 2 speaks of all having a knowledge of God within the conscience, even if they don't recognize it as God. It is embedded in us. I called it some light elsewhere, of which many took offense as unbelievers are in spiritual darkness, so before a witch hunt starts ...

Where is my broom?

Although I'll use it to sweep the bad juju away. I can use the term knowledge if you prefer.

Where was I? We all have a knowledge of God in the conscience, although for unbelievers it is contaminated by spiritual darkness.

No offense meant to anyone. I know there is no good in me either, apart from God.

I agree, its our intentions. But that doesn't negate the law not to steal. It only qualifies peoples hearts as to whether they have broken that law. The law still stands and the fact that not everyone intends to steal doesn't change Gods law.

Go back to scriptures on what Jesus said when He was often accused of breaking the law. The law was never intended to prevent good, but to police those intended on causing harm, and to show us how powerless we are against our fallen nature of ourselves.

But I hear what you are saying, and agree, to a degree.

I am also not sure about Christ saying we should obey world governments no matter what. I think that was more about our civil duties to support the governments administration of society. But I don't think its right to support a dictator State thats harming people. I think California brought in a law where people could steal up to $900 worth of stuff and it was a misdemeanor. This caused a spike in shop lifting.

No. Never said no matter what. Our authority will always foremost be Christ; his Spirit of love.

I see more as to keep order in a diverse world with various beliefs.

I am sure this harms people as it increases prices and insurances. But psychologically its sending a message that its ok to steal. People disrespect the property of other people and think they have a right to take it. I don't think people should support such government laws.

Take lying. Sometimes I tell my mom pa is out for the night. Maybe I'll say he's working on my home and spending the night there, something like that. If I remind her he passed she mourns his passing over and over.

But lying should not be a habit and everyone needs to be ok with the Lord on what is ok there. It is always a matter of the heart with God.

If I believe I am doing wrong and I do it, that is what God sees.

I had a talk with mom as I told her I would never lie to her so I said, "Mom, this has been the situation. If I tell you the truth, you mourn all over again. What do I do. You tell me because I don't always know what the right thing to do is."

She told me not to remind her. I said, "I can do that, but what if you are distressed and worried, you ok I lie to you?"

She said that was fine.

I was fine lying in this situation because i know that I'm not doing it for harm, but to prevent stress and worry on her part, but lying can break trust and when trust is broken it can be difficult to get it back so ... Not always the best route for other reasons too.

There is another matter on lack of faith too, but where I am at, which God knows, I feel my route is fine and I feel fine with God on it, for now.

Although, don't follow me. We, as Christians all must do what the Lord lays on our hearts, and I see him challenging me in another area here in the other area of faith. Until that picture is more clear, My conscience is clear, but as Paul said, doesn't make me right ...

I agree it starts in the heart. Change the heart and you change the person. Well its actually the spirit, that part of us that is our conscience.

But sometimes I think the love of God is setting the laws in place. They show us we are sinners and need salvation. This is what changes the heart. The love comes in that despite being sinners Christ died for us that we may be reborn with a new heart and mind.

The law shows us as sinners. The law is very important otherwise we condemn God and the law as the bad one.

But change comes by the Spirit who drives us by his love.

But that is technicality. I think it is important though on this site because many believers are groveling and drowning in guilt and condemnation, and shame.

They are stuck and living in spiritual death and bondage. There is no life and joy in that. There is misery and death and an endless cycle of self conscience and defeat.

If that doesn't start the witch hunt.
Where is my broom?

Yes it does thankyou. That is the gospel as mentioned above and there is no judgement in that regardless of intentions or guilt. Sinners are accepted and in fact welcomed in coming to God.

Amen.
I apologize. I can be wordy, or shall I say wordo.

Thanks Mate. God bless you!

 

[Jo555]

Found some time now.
Sure, in the first degree, second degree, third degree.

Or, the difference between negligence, passion, and intent.

Bible speaks of this too.

Think i lost my last message so going to repeat. I don't see it. It is very short

Let me know if my wordyness (I make up words too) confused you. I can condense if you like.

Thanks for sharing, from down under.

 

[Bradskii]

I have. The OP explained what the thread was about. The first post was asking what is the foundation of atheist morality. Foundation means the objective basis.

If you think that an objective basis for a moral position means that morality itself is therefore objective, then you have a serious problem with comprehension.

 

[Bradskii]

Well murder is wrong. Stealing is wrong. Morality is normative, meaning it has a right and wrong and not a grey area. Its either right or wrong.

Murder is a legal term which by definition describes an act of killing as being wrong. But let's take stealing. Do you think it's possible for me to give you an example of stealing which you think is morally right? An example where there is this 'grey area'?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Murder is a legal term which by definition describes an act of killing as being wrong. But let's take stealing. Do you think it's possible for me to give you an example of stealing which you think is morally right? An example where there is this 'grey area'?

Be quiet 24601.

[edit: I knew something about the spelling felt wrong.]

 

[Tinker Grey]

Be quite 24601.

That's where my thoughts went.