So either killing other human beings is not against an innate moral sense or it's not immoral under particular circumstances. Can you at least outline the circumstances where it's not immoral to kill other human beings? — praxis

In self-defense, for example.

My remark was not about the length but about the clarity of the argument. I suspect that more thought about how exactly to formulate your points more clearly will actually lead to a shorter post.

It is also very difficult to have a debate about many claims at once because it becomes hard to follow which claim some comment applies to. Concentrating on the most important claims (you decide which that might be) also leads to shorter posts. After clarifying one claim, the debate can then move on to the next. (This is the reason why I picked only few claims--those which seemed clear enough to discuss while still central enough to what I assume your post is about.)

So, no, on the contrary I would have preferred a shorter post. In some parts the claims were very vague--especially beginning with "they...". It wasn't clear to me who you refer to and it wasn't clear to me what the point to be thought through is at that instance. — ivb

Are you going to address any points?

I'm not talking about a specific belief unique to one side of an argument. My point is about the use of logic and reasoning to support one's arguments and claims.

In most of your arguments, you don't engage with the question of actually justifying your position with logic. You just repeat some assertion of what athiesm or materialism does. You don't engage in terms of logic to actually justify your claims over oppositions. You don't give us a reason to think your position is correct over others. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Again- yes. The topic is "the big gaping hole in materialism". Yes. I address the subject. Another subject is another discussion.

On a side note: Let's not bring Kant into this and just stick to the claims at hand. (Comparing oneself with that calibre can only bring ridicule.) — ivb

Ridicule or non-ridicule is not a criteron of truth. You should know that. And it's the general principle that counts- I'm not comparing myself with Kant (although I'm no huge admirer of Kant).

Also yes, reasoning is a minimal requirement for posts here, if you don't like it, kindly find somewhere else you can be unreasonable among. — StreetlightX

Yes, I'm all for reasoning. What I'm against the hegemony of the "Reason" I've described here:

"Reason" is that which operates from atheistic premises. That which goes against atheism is against "Reason".

And so if you go against "Reason" (which is code for atheism)- then you need to be censored. — Ram

Every 3rd thread on the front page is about deligion*

"The forum hates religion!"

Get over yourself. — StreetlightX

Where is the debate over whether or not atheists should be allowed to express their views?
And where is the push to make sure that atheists only express their views in a way that is perceived as legitimate according to standards imposed by theists?

Marcus de Brun mentioned the issue of censorship being used to further subterranean agendas: "Censorship is good and is important. However on occasion it is used for personal or a general subterranean agenda. This happens when certain ideas are banned or moved or merged into other threads."

It's not hard to see the agenda when you've spelled it out explicitly:

Not enough indifference. Still treats the problem of God's existence as a legitimate question, even if answered in the negative. Only true atheism is: 'God? What's that?' 'Never heard of it' 'Lets get on with it then'. Ruthless, uncaring abandonment of the debate as beneath the dignity of sense, let alone truth.

To treat God like we treat Quetzalcoatl: an artefact of distant bemusement. — StreetlightX

Like I said:

Do the atheists want a discussion or do they just want a space where they can bash theism and where theists can't respond? — Ram

We both know I've been censored and I think it is being pushed to move things in the direction I just described in the above quote.

I am new to the forum, in what way have you been censored? Were there reasons given? — DingoJones

I will explain this to you. Everything here needs to be based on "Reason". And "Reason" is that which operates from atheistic premises. That which goes against atheism is against "Reason".

And so if you go against "Reason" (which is code for atheism)- then you need to be censored.

I'm not on staff, so my comments do not represent there reasons in my comments, but your criticism had been terrible throughout, a series of posts with many unsupported or outright mistaken claims about athiesm and materialism.

You do not engage with ideas on the subjects in most cases. When people try to engage your criticism, you generally do not respond in the space of logic and reasons. You just repeat an assertion of how atheists and materialists must be terrible.

Suffice to say, the reasons your claims attract censure is likely because the break forum rules with regards to giving supported arguments. Most of the time you aren't reasoning about what is true, you are just engaged in a practice of attacking a terrible atheists and materialists. In an environment which is dedicated to reasoning and pursuit of truth, just spewing attacks against you enemies doesn't cut it. — TheWillowOfDarkness

´again

The "Enlightenment" is so "enlightened" I might get banned if I think outside its perspective, as having an alternate view is deemed unacceptable by its guardians. — Ram

I think "Reason" to you is that which fits in your particular framework and that which is outside of your preconceived framework is outside of "Reason". You talk about search for truth and I'm about search for truth also. And I think that necesitates being willing to go outside preconceived frameworks and epistemologies.

These materialists want everything to fit into their preconceived framework and reject things not on the basis of whether or not they're true but whether they fit into the preconceived framework. This is no way to search for truth.

Materialists literally cannot think outside of their preconceived framework. Islamic epistemology or the epistemology of The Varieties of Religious Experience.... these epistemologies are literally unthinkable for them. They think the epistemology handed down from the Enlightenmennt is the only conceivable epistemology and can't conceive of other epistemologies, much less evaluate them. — Ram

I apologize for not addressing all of your points, but it seems to me that they all would require some work in their exposition to warrant a proper debate. — ivb

Well which one is it? I got one post telling me that my post was excessively long and now this one telling me I didn't go in depth enough.

I thank you, though- you are right! I wrote a long post and it still wasn't long enough. I actually sensed that at the end. My problem with my post is I wrote this:

My desire is to show that there is a way out for the atheist who is not a follower of desires and that there is a way out if a person wants to pursue it. — Ram

but I don't think I did enough to actually explain the way out.

At the same time, I think I sensed that even when I was writing it but I already knew my post was very long.

If you have a specific issue or topic you want to go into- let's get into it. Go and tell me what you want more elaboration on and let's explore it. I accept that other people have their points of view. They're free to disagree with my views and I'm free to disagree with theirs, I just think we should avoid personal attacks on individuals.

Firstly, the claim that "atheism gives them a license to do whatever they want" would require a separate argument as it is not self-evident to me: While atheism might not give behavioural prescriptions, it does not rule out other sources of behavioural rules. I fail to see how it would grant any license at all. What those other (subjective/intersubjective/objective) sources of morality might be, is discussed in large parts of moral philosophy and ethics and there is no need (and not enough space) to repeat that discussion here. (20-50 years of study would not be enough. And I'm sorry to say that, but if you think that you have grasped it all, then I'm inclined to think that you have not understood it. This is meant as an expression of my hesitation to take your word on that, not as a judgement of your intelligence.)

Secondly, the claim that "atheism leads to the conclusion that life is meaningless" seems to require a very thorough argument as well: Again, atheism might not provide a meaning for your or anyone's life, but it does not rule out meaning either. And again whatever you might intend by 'meaning' can have sources elsewhere. (I personally have found sources for both morality and meaning--albeit subjective.)

Therefore, although you seem to imagine atheism to be a dark and desolate place, it is not necessarily so. Yes, it might require some work to establish all of those things. (It's worth the time and thought for me at least. And I don't see anyone solving the theodicee problem anytime soon.) — ivb

Me I apologize that I don't think I'll be responding to this in the depth it reserves. I get a lot of responses from people and I'm happy about it (I want to try to represent a viewpoint that they might be familiar with and that I think doesn't get heard) but it makes it difficult for me to respond in the depth that things might deserve.

Now, let me try to break down the issues

1)- "If there is no God, everything is permitted"- true or not? I say it's true. You say it isn't true. Okay.

2)- Atheism leads to the conclusion that life is meaningless- true or not? I say it's true. You say it isn't true. Okay.

3- Pretty much an extension of the second one- you say I think atheism is "a dark and desolate place". Also you mention something about theodicy (I think that's the "problem of evil" but I have to look that up).

Firstly, I think the most interesting point you made was the one I addressed first.

The medium is the message. This is not an adequate medium for exploring these issues. Look how many pages The Republic is. Look how many pages the Quran is. Look how many pages the Bible is. If you're an atheist, look how many pages The God Delusion is. (I've read all those books by the way)

Now as far as 1)- I think this video illustrates the matter better than I can https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQ-aqnDHqqA&t=6s

In my defense, it's been said that Kant was a great philosopher and a terrible writer. I definitely believe in what I believe as far as my religion but I don't think I'm a particularly good writer or claim to be. But like I said- it's possible for example for Kant to be a good philosopher and a bad writer. So whether my writing is particularly good is not necessarily the barometer of whether or not I'm right or not.

Now as far as 1)- I already made a thread about that. I can't remember the title off the top of my head and I want to be quick so I can respond to more people. I'm getting a lot of responses.

Anyways, if you look in the religion section, I think you'll find a thread by me called something like "there is no secular basis for morality". So there's already a whole thread on that one issue.

I think an atheist on here summed it up very well though if you want a very brief take:

With all due respect for my fellow atheists here, I don't think you are helping the argument.

Moral realism, innate morality etc... is no real justification for morality. All i have to say to you is, like he's been saying all along, I feel/think differently, and we are back at moral relativism. Why should I put my moral beliefs aside for yours?

There is no objective morality without god, you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. — ChatteringMonkey

Now as far as 2)- yes I agree with that a lot. I'm not sure who published it first- Huffington Post or the atheist "skeptic" website- but look who published this:

https://www.skepticink.com/dangeroustalk/2012/10/11/atheism-has-a-suicide-problem/

That's not islamisthetruthatheistsaredumb.com- that's an atheist website. An atheist website itself published that. If you want to think atheism doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion that life is essentially meaningless... I mean... you're free to think what you want. But I do think life is essentially meaningless from an atheist perspective. I think you have a vested personal interest in denying that and you have to find ways to avoid that conclusion... but I think atheism does posit the existence of man... who has an innate drive for meaning... in an essentially meaningless universe.... which is sort of terrifying the more that a person is cognizant of it. I can understand, why, for example a lot of people get into drugs. You have the schools, the institutions, etc. pushing on people that life is essentially meaningless... and so naturally people want to escape that vast void they believe themselves to be living in. I recommend The Stranger by Camus if you want an illustration of what I'm talking about. Actually- just study pretty much any Existentialism. What I'm saying is not really that different than Existentialism- or Postmodernism. They both say pretty much the same thing that I'm saying, I'm just saying it from an outside perspective.

Now as far as 3).... am I saying atheism is a dark, desolate place?

You know, man (or woman).... my post isn't really meant against atheists. My stuff isn't really meant against atheists or against anybody in particular. I think people are presenting things in that way, framing it in that way so that there can be a justification to censor me.... in order to silence my viewpoint..... I think I pointed out already.... the title is "the big gaping hole in materialism", not materialists.... I'm talking about ideas, I'm not to attack people although I can understand why people might take it personally.... but at the same time like I mentioned to someone else.... for there to be debate, people have to be free to criticize ideas...... so if there is to be open discussion, people have to be able to criticize ideas.... equating this with attacks on people and thus doing away with discussion of ideas.... I mean if people want to go this route.... it is what it is..... now as far as atheism allegedly or nonallegedly being a dark, desolate place...... I have said that there is no secular basis for morality..... and I have said that it posits the universe as essentially meaningless... if that's depressing..... depressing is a verb.... it has to be carried out on an "object".... you know so.... Marquis de Sade might believe the idea that life has no objective meaning is the most exciting thing ever.... another person might find it dark, desolate, depressing..... I think the person who is purest in heart will find it depressing for the reason I mentioned:

a person whose heart is pure will not be satisfied with atheism and want a way out- will crave for there to be a God (and thus justice as without God this world is one of injustice and there is no justice for people) — Ram

Materialism's gaping hole is its brute-fact, and Materialists inability to define the "objective reality", "objective existence" and "actuality" that they attribute to this material universe, to argue for Materialism over Idealism.

Some Materialists declare that the world of their Materialism is absurd (They're called "absurdists"). Of course they're right about that. ...but it doesn't seem to make them question their Materialism.

I'm dismayed by the way this thread is going. Yes, Ram's post spoke of some negative things, but so, uniformly, do the shorter posts of our aggressive Atheists.

When I reply to aggressive Atheists here, I reply to at least some of the points that they make in their posts and which I disagree with. That's what a reply is. I don't use one-line dismissals of what they say.

Michael Ossipoff — Michael Ossipoff

I mean... are driven by seeking truth or by emotions?? They say my post is "negative".

I'm supposed to apologize for my post not being happy, feel-good enough? If you want "happy, feel-good"- don't read my stuff. I'm not about "happy, feel-good".

Is this what philosophy and discourse has been reduced to? It's weighed on how much it's "happy, feel-good"? Look, I don't know how "happy, feel-good" my post is. I wasn't thinking about whether or not what I said was "happy, feel-good" or not. I'm not writing a Disney film. My post was written by an adult and for adults. I'm not out to insult the audience by assuming they need "happy feel-good". I wasn't thinking about "happy, feel-good" or "negativity"- I was thinking about whether what I said is true or not.

Maybe that's why people are against religion. The job of the Prophets (PBUH) was to tell the people the truth, not to make people feel good. I refuse to accept whether or not something is "feel-good" or not as the criterion of its truth.... or to accept that truth as not even being the criterion and "feel-good" as the criterion.

The atheists criticize theism and I criticize atheism. I assume we're adults here and we can handle a discussion. Do the atheists want a discussion or do they just want a space where they can bash theism and where theists can't respond?

If they want a discussion- then let's talk! That's what I'm here for.

Why so negative? This is an excessively long post, and the vast majority of it is a denigration of others rather than an explanation of your own position.

If atheism conforms to your desires, perhaps you won't want to leave atheism- so as not to leave desires. I hope you are not like an animal. The "Enlightenment" is so "enlightened" I might get banned if I think outside its perspective, as having an alternate view is deemed unacceptable by its guardians.
— Ram

I too am unenlightened. But you might well get banned if you go on in this way. Stop telling us how awful we are or are going to be, as if you were seeking virtual martyrdom at the hands of the terrible atheists, and tell us what you have that is better. My background is more Christian, and my interest has turned more to Buddhism, so I know relatively little about Islam. But you are not making it very attractive at the moment. — unenlightened

Attractive to you. You have gone away from Christianity and towards Buddhism so you might be against Abrahamic religion in general. Your idea of "attractive" might be a watered-down version of what I believe. What matters is what God thinks, not what people think. You talking about going towards Buddhism is not attractive to me.

You relying on a sort of threat of me being banned is not attractive to me either. Atheists can criticize theism all they want and the site has no problem with it but I'm supposed to not criticize atheism.

Besides, this only confirms what I said:

The "Enlightenment" is so "enlightened" I might get banned if I think outside its perspective, as having an alternate view is deemed unacceptable by its guardians. — Ram

And yes I criticize atheism and materialism. That is the topic of the post! It is called "the big gaping hole in materialism". So yes I address the topic. And the topic is the hole in materialism, not attacking atheists personally. If you don't like my post, read the article I linked to at the beginning. You might like their style better.

I'll start simple.

Killing other human beings is wrong according to your belief in an innate moral sense. Adherents of theistic religions kill other human beings, in mass in some circumstances. The very notion of Jihad (holly war) is an exemplar of corruption. — praxis

The first sentence is wrong. I read an account of how an African-American in the 19th century killed a KKK member in order to defend his family against KKK terrorism when the KKK attempted to invade his home at night. I don't think he was wrong at all and I think his action was heroic. So the first sentence is wrong. I hope the rest of your paragraph isn't dependent on the incorrect first sentence.

Okay. I see the second sentence depends on the first sentence. This is not good. The first sentence is wrong and so the second sentence depends on a false premise. This is not good.

I see. The third sentence is the same. Also, I don't think it understands the term "jihad". Furthermore, ISIS (and the killing of innocents) is against Islam and that's a whole other topic and a very long discussion. However, insha'Allah we can discuss it if you'd like to know more about it.

Okay, so you wouldn't find it personally insulting. Just kind of dumb? — S

I wouldn't even necessarily find it dumb. If you want to talk about it, insha'Allah we can talk about it. You're free to criticize ideas. I just don't think it's cool to insult people as individuals. For a debate to take place, of course people need to be able to criticize positions- but attacking individuals is unnecessary and bad for debate.

Would you find it insulting if I suggested that theists support terrorism? I could show you this video, but I think you get the point. — S

No, I wouldn't find it personally insulting. There's a difference between addressing ideas and addressing individual people.

If the forum is to be consistent, we need to start censoring people who promote atheism. I'm not actually advocating that but that is what it would look like if the forum was consistent.

That's insulting to a lot of people. I think that maybe if you had a taste of your own medicine, you might realise why it's insulting. — S

Ah more rationalization on your part for why you think you're entitled to insult believers. From your perspective you're entitled to do what you want so insulting people for believing differently doesn't surprise me and only confirms what I've been saying this whole time.

??? It is the exact issue. — praxis

Then persuade me of your position on the issue.

Yes, persuasive to me. — praxis

I don't know, in any case this is a different issue and I have no interest in persuading you of that.

Wasn't it you who posted that video of people expressing sympathy with people who partake in incest in a topic that's supposed to be about atheist morality? — S

I try to be respectful towards people. I'm not about insulting people personally.

Can you present a persuasive argument against the thought that theism or religious beliefs in general are not the corruption? — praxis

Persuasive to who? Persuasive to you?

Can you present an argument persuasive to me that there is no God?

Atheists are human and according to your beliefs humans have an innate moral base. Problem solved. — praxis

Very, very weak. This is weaker than a twig. It is based on lacking comprehension of my perspective rather than any valid refutation. It's a mere strawman. Plus it leaves out tons and tons (such as temptation). "Ignorant and proud" seems to be the mentality displayed.

Humans are born pure and become corrupt.

The flaw with any religion or individual claiming a moral basis that applies to a group is obviously evident when you understand how a human experiences 'life'.

Your body gathers raw input through its senses which your subconscious translates into concepts using the knowledge and experience you have available. You are only aware of the end product, the subconciously translated concepts, not the raw input.

When you discuss Islam, you discuss your own personal understanding of it which is derived from fundamental aspects such as your society and family culture, your language and all sorts of experiences you've had. That knowledge is from where? Your teachers taught you based on their understanding which was taught to them by others and so on. The very religous texts your belief is based on was written in a culture which no longer exists in that exact form and is translated by other humans using their own understanding to decide the correct wording.

If you follow this to its inevitable conclusion, you end up in a place where each individual lives according to their current understanding of the universe and everything in it. No two individuals understanding of a religion or its moral code is going to be exactly the same. And that understanding is subject to change every second you experience life unless you go to great lengths to isolate yourself from anything new or different.

Hence why religions in general always include some form of isolation policy. — Kramar

Don't you come from a Western background? And more specifically, I think you come from European ancestry. I am not sure but I bet I'm right.

When you discuss any topic (including Islam), you discuss your own personal understanding of it which is derived from fundamental aspects such as your society and family culture, your language and all sorts of experiences you've had. That knowledge is from where? Your teachers taught you based on their understanding which was taught to them by others and so on.

You look at me as influenced by culture and I look at you the same way. Maybe you think I'm the product of a particular culture. That means nothing to me. I think you're the product of a particular culture. I wouldn't be surprised if this is the only language you speak. Furthermore, you have no idea what my background is.

I support secularism and I don't personally like or feel comfortable with hard-core divine-command-theorists — yazata

You might not like religious types but we're at least consistent with our premises. Our conclusions follow from our premises.

on the other hand it's... what?... personal intuition? Gut feeling? — yazata

Furthermore, I respect your right to disagree with me. You are free to your beliefs and I don't expect you to believe what I believe. Furthermore, I don't believe "the end justifies the means".

What annoys me is it's the leftist utopian SJW types..... those are the types who are out to terrorize whoever thinks differently than them. I'm conservative in a lot of ways and I might give a stern lecture but I'm not out to terrorize whoever doesn't think like me. The word "terrorism" actually originated with the French Revolution where the utopians decided they were going to create some sort of utopia and in order to do so they were going to terrorize the people into submission and use terror (hence the Reign of Terror) against whoever disagreed with them.

The French Revolution, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot- those are the real danger. I just want to practice my religion in peace and co-exist. However, the leftists.... those are the threat. The leftists don't want to co-exist. They want you to conform with their ideology... or else. And I don't think it's realistic that people with my sort of view will take power in Western countries. Religious conservatives have lost the culture war. The left goes after us because we're an easy target. Religious conservatives in the West have been defeated. We're not running things. The left controls academia, the media, the institutions... the religious types don't even control the right. Even the right has basically given up on religion and now has become a vehicle for thinly-veiled white nationalism. It's basically a battle between leftist social engineers who want to build a utopia and think they just need to intimidate everyone else into submission... and white nationalists. Religious conservatism isn't even on the table.

Seems like Trump is part of a wider global or at least Western trend, in which 'average' people are trying to gain some control over the direction of their countries within the context of an increasingly globalized, neoliberal world order. Outsourcing of manufacturing jobs + mass immigration + increased automation + cultural shifts have combined to create a sense of disorientation and alienation for the masses.

To be fair I think these larger issues should be factored in as contributing causes rather than simply dismissing everything other than racism and xenophobia in a reductionist way, although these also play a role in scapegoating the 'other' both within (elites who benefited a great deal from previous arrangements) and without. Once Trump is gone these issues will linger on and need to be addressed; the fact that they weren't handled proactively by previous leadership - at least not well enough - is part of the reason for Trump's ascendancy in the first place.

IMO as always. Too easy to lay the entirety of the blame for our disturbing situation on dumb, uneducated, racist Trump worshipers, as if things were running smoothly and all was well until he showed up. That wasn't the case, and we should start talking honestly about possible ways to alleviate the suffering of our nation's less fortunate citizens moving forward. — Erik

I'd also add the unpopular opinion that if you are a middle or lower class, patriotic, religiously inclined white person then the alternative to an imperfect (to state it mildly) Republican Party under Trump's leadership is not ideal. Think about it. You have been made the enemy, the 'other' in a Schmittian way, for progressives whose overall worldview is radically opposed to yours in almost every essential aspect.

That 'lesser of two evils' position helps explain why, I think, so many white people whose economic interests would seem to align with the Dems choose to vote against those interests by supporting free market Republicans. The cultural issues outweigh the economic ones. And outside of Bernie Sanders I don't think the Dems have hammered home that more class-oriented economic message very well. This shift away from working class whites started with Clinton if not earlier. Listen to them rattle of the groups they represent: blacks, Latinos, women, young people...

So I'd ask, Why should those maligned lower and middle class white citizens vote for a party that's made it very clear they're not welcome under the Democratic Party's umbrella? Or is this an exaggeration? Perhaps I'm mistaken but calculating shifting demographic trends seems to be the preferred tactic of Dems. Probably a winning strategy in the not-too-distant future. Trump cultivates those right-wing resentments while Dems do so among traditionally marginalized racial (and other) groups. We're pretty much fucked. — Erik

You make really good points.

Ehh...Trump and Hillary... I detest them both.

There really were no free-market Republicans. This was merely dog whistle politics. The GOP slogans of "smaller government" never once brought about an actually smaller government. "Smaller government" was simply code for --- "we'll cut off welfare, which will hurt colored people." Poor white people in the USA have often gone along with policies that hurt them, simply because they liked the idea of hurting colored people in the process. The same with slogans like "law and order," which was code for, "we'll lock up colored people."

Since Trump is now out in the open with white-nationalism being the party platform of the GOP, the dog-whistles have gone silent, and now we have blatant white-nationalism as a matter of policy. From the pardoning of a racist sheriff in Arizona, which was a high-five to the Nazis in Virginia, and an assault against the judicial branch of government, to the racist symbolic border wall, to the myths about lazy Hispanic immigrants stealing our jobs. If they're so lazy, then how can they be stealing jobs?

America First was the slogan of Americans who supported Hitler before our entry into WWII, and it is not a coincidence that this is now the slogan of Trump and the GOP. — LD Saunders

I agree with this post.

There are clearly atheists who believe they have such a basis. Moral realism is a position which at least a plurality of atheists hold. I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but I've come across it enough to see that there are those who believe as much. In fact I'd say that as long as there exists a person who believes two things to be true they'd count -- as long as there exists a person who believes God does not exist, and believes that at least one statement is both a moral statement and true, then I'd be inclined to say that it's at least possible to hold both beliefs.

But you want a demonstration, and not just an example. And you're interested in not just consistency, but whether or not the foundational principle of morality is strong, rather than weak.

Am I right so far?

If so -- it'd be helpful to hash out what counts as a demonstration, what makes a moral foundational principle strong rather than weak, and how what you currently believe actually fits those criteria in a way that does not assume its conclusion.

Because if submitting to Allah is good because submitting to Allah is good then clearly no atheist will be able to meet that criteria, but it will also just sort of assume the belief from the outset in a way that rational disagreement or discussion couldn't take place. — Moliere

Okay. Hmm. Glad to be talking to someone interesting.

I don't deny that there are atheists who believe in objective morality- in moral realism. I deny that they are being consistent, though. I think they are sentimental people who are willing to accept atheism but unwilling to accept what it entails.

Well I mean Christianity tells it somewhat differently but Islam and Christianity both talk about how Iblees (Satan) rebelled against God.

I mean so humans can follow the path of Iblees and join in his rebellion- or submit to God. Imagine if the sun or the earth behaved like Iblees and rebelled against God. If the sun or the earth moved slightly in the wrong direction, chaos would ensue.

We have to live in harmony with the natural law.

Now as far as what makes for a good foundation- if we accept a set of rules come from God- that's a good foundation. If the rules were made up by... some dude... I am also some dude... if he just made stuff up, I can make stuff up too. I mean so for me Islam is a good foundation because it comes from God. I think that is a good foundation. I don't know of any other foundation for morality. What other foundation for morality can there be? I'm aware that there are atheists who are... sometimes even rather dogmatic... believers in objective morality (SJW extremists who try to terrorize anyone who thinks differently are a sort of extreme example).... however, I think they are inconsistent and that whatever morality they try to pretend is objective is something someone made up. Either we accept that morals come from God or we have to accept that morality itself is something made up, I think.

You still haven't answer my suggestion that convention or agreement in a given group is the basis for a non-objective morality. It isn't necessary that everybody literally agrees with it, it's enough that most do, tacit or explict, or that this happens via representation...

To take your example, it doesn't matter that the Columbine Shooters personally believed that what they did was not immoral. They would be put into jail anyway, not because God ordained it, but because (the large majority of) people collectively agree on the rule that murder is wrong. — ChatteringMonkey

That's interesting that you bring that up. The Quran actually addresses that in Surah Al Kahf. It's also a theme which runs throughout the Quran.

In Surah Al Kahf, this rich, impious man mocks a pious man who has less. The rich man has more in terms of wealth, children and followers among the people. However, in the end God rewards the pious man and punishes the rich man. It's an interesting story. I hope you read it sometime.

At the time the Quran was revealed, it was a common practice that people would bury their infant daughters. The Quran forbade this. If the majority thinks it's okay to bury your infant daughter, is it wrong to tell people not to bury their infant daughters?

So we must have some fundamental principle of morality that is both secular, and believes there is a right and a wrong -- we might say something akin to the way we know that 1 and 1 make 2, regardless of our belief, we can also know that there are moral propositions which are true regardless of what we believe about them. If we had a theory that fit both of those requirements then it would seem that we could conclude that it is at least not necessarily the case that secular beliefs imply subjective morality.

Yes or no?


I am not degrading you or asking my questions rhetorically. I'm laying a groundwork for meaningful disagreement. I surely disagree with your assertion, but that's neither here nor there. Disagreement isn't interesting unto itself -- else you just end up re-asserting what you already believe in increasingly strong tones.

What's interesting is how and why we disagree -- hence why I'm asking questions about what are seemingly simple words. But usually they are not so simple or innocuous as they might seem at first blush. — Moliere

I'm fine with discussing with you and I enjoy it. You're free to your own beliefs and I'm fine with disagreement as long as it's respectful. I try to be respectful as well. It's about ideas, not people.

Now as far as definition- yes I was going more with the second definition which was presented.

Now as far as what I've quoted from you... "we must have some fundamental principle of morality that is both secular and believes there is a right and a wrong".

I don't agree with that. Now I do respect that there are atheists who try to preserve morality.

However, such atheists are on an insecure foundation. Morality has to have a solid foundation.

I think atheism necessarily implies moral relativism. I am a Muslim but I am also a theist (specifically a monotheist).

According to Islam, sovereignty belongs to God. Allah is Al-Malik- sovereignty belongs to Allah. I think this flows logically from monotheism.

I think the essence of morality is submission to Allah. Allah commands what is just, what is good.

I think your post implies that the Euthyphro dilemma has already been answered and that there is some Good which is independent of Allah. Is that which is just, just because Allah commands it? Or Allah commands it because it is just?

I think what is just is what Allah commands. I don't think "just" or "good" should be conceived as independent of or prior to God. I don't like that at all.

I don't believe there is some Good independent of Allah. Submission to Allah is I believe the basis of morality.

I will give an example. The sun comes out in the morning and lights the earth. Imagine if the sun was to rebel against God! What if the sun told God "I don't want to get up" and refused to rise and light the earth. It would be chaos!

What if the rain said "I don't want to come down to earth and bring water upon earth. I am going to stay here in this cozy cloud"? It would be chaos.

Because Allah is All-Knowing and All-Wise and because Allah is Just and Good and because Allah is Allah... we must submit to Allah. The sun submits to Allah by rising in the morning. Our shadows prostrate to Allah. I think the rain submits to Allah by coming on to the earth and watering the earth- so plants can grow, for example. I think the essence of good is submitting to Allah and the essence of evil is being like Iblees and refusing to submit to Allah and rebelling against Allah.

Thus, by rising and setting at its appointed time I think the sun submits to Allah and I think pretty much everything submits to Allah. Imagine if the earth or the sun moved a little in one direction or the other. If they moved a little further apart, earth would become frozen. If they moved a little closer, we would melt. Therefore there is a natural order and we need to play our role by submitting to our Creator.

This is why, for example, it is wrong for people to engage in unlawful sexual intercourse. It goes against our Creator. Allah gave us free will but Allah wants us to wait until marriage. However, we have free will. This makes us different than the angels- who serve Allah but who don't have free will.

So therefore the premise that there is some independent Good existing independent of Allah I do not believe. Allah knows best. Allah is our Creator. We should obey Allah. Just as the sun rises in the morning, the earth keeps a certain distance from a sun, we have to play our role. This is good. When we disobey Allah and when we go against what is the natural, innate law is when things go bad.

So obviously, I am thinking from different premises than you- or at least maybe so. I already am a believer in the premise that there is a God. Maybe you are thinking from another premise.

However, I do not agree that morality is secular. I don't believe reality is secular. I don't think from a secular perspective nor do I think from the perspective of the so-called "Enlightenment" which I oppose.

I think you are presupposing that the Euthyphro dilemma has already been answered and that it has been answered in a certain direction. However, I think we have different responses to the Euthyphro dilemma and I don't think our premises lead in the same direction. If my premise is theism and your premise is atheism, these premises lead in very different directions.

There is no secular basis for morality. There is no secular basis even for presupposing the validity of morality itself. From a secular perspective, there is no basis for accepting morality as an end at all.

Atheism leads to moral relativism. Now from a moral relativist perspective, a person is free to do as they like and they can construct an elaborate system of morality if they like- but this whole elaborate system of morality is merely an extension of them doing what they like.

Furthermore, an arbitrary morality which is meant as a replacement for the morality of Christianity or Islam has an extremely weak basis. Morality is tested when times are hard. It is therefore necessary that morality has a firm basis which can withstand tests. A morality with a weak basis will be blown away when the wind blows.

I think I misinterpreted your first sentence but I leave this for now. I thought you were saying there is a secular morality. I think I understand now. Okay.

Now if we accept that atheism necesarily leads to moral relativism and we from that position construct an elaborate system of morality so as to fill a gap which is left empty without religion- obviously, we haven't disproven my thesis that atheism necessarily leads to moral relativism. I think you would need to both come up with some system of morality which is secular and which is not relative. However, I do not believe this is possible. I do not believe that you can demonstrate the validity of a secular system of morality- or even secular morality at all- in the same way as you can demonstrate a math problem. From a secular perspective, there is no reason why one should even accept morality as an end at all. There would be no reason not to follow Nietzsche in simply dispensing with morality. If you can demonstrate an objective, secular morality which disproves moral relativism that you can demonstrate like math or science- I would like to see it.

Again, you're only demonstrating your lack of understanding about what moral relativism entails. It does not entail, "Do whatever you want! There's no right or wrong!". — S

Actually, that's exactly what it entails.

Yes, I have a combative and critical style. Get over it. If your thoughts and justifications for religion can't withstand that kind of exposure, then they can't be of much worth, philosophically.
— S

If you think philosophical matters are best addressed combatively, then we must disagree. Discussion is a co-operative consideration of matters concerning (in this case) religion. It's not a fight (combat), or it shouldn't be if we hope to gain the most benefit from our discussions. — Pattern-chaser

Ah- now your logical gymnastics make sense. So apparently, it seems you are more interested in "winning" than in a dispassionate and objective search for truth. Such a person is pointless to talk to. I have no intention of responding to you any further.

What's a basis? Is it the same thing as saying that morality is objective? So that your second statement is a restatement of the first?

And why would a secular position entail necessary subjectivity? Why not simply say that a secular morality is subjective? What's the difference?


I don't think that atheists are quite as homogeneous as you believe. As if you could just read Sartre and then know what all consistent atheists should believe. — Moliere

What is a basis?

noun, plural ba·ses [bey-seez] /ˈbeɪ siz/.
1. the bottom or base of anything; the part on which something stands or rests.
2. anything upon which something is based; fundamental principle; groundwork.

I guess you can say moral relativism is a basis for "morality". It's not a basis for morality, though.

Morality is objective. Morality has to do with right and wrong. You cannot deny that there is right and wrong and have a basis for morality. There is no secular basis for morality. A person can degrade the definition of "basis" or degrade the definition of "morality" in a display of logical gymnastics if they like it is what it is.

Like I said- atheists don't want to deal with this directly. They want to dance around the issue and get into logical gymnastics. At the end of the day, they understand, though- even if they might not say it- if there is no God then everything is permissible. This is simply a fact.

People are taking a dishonest approach and denying what is blatantly obvious to any objective, unbiased analysis. Even Sartre understood. If you read Sartre- Sartre explained that he was merely out to follow atheism to its logical conclusions. So not all atheists might be Sartre readers- but atheism logically leads to moral relativism. And a person can try to dress moral relativism up all they want but the bottom line is that it means that people can do whatever they want.

This is from the diary of Eric Harris, one of the Columbine shooters: "I think, so the f*** what, you think thats a bad thing? just because your mommy and daddy told you blood and violence is bad, you think its a f***ing law of nature? wrong, only science and math are true, everything, and I mean everyfuckingthing else is man made."

All he did was follow moral relativism to its logical conclusion. If you really accept moral relativism, you can't say he was wrong. If you think or say he was wrong then you are denying that morality is relative and implying that morality is objective.

If someone thinks moral relativism is a basis for morality
they can say "you're an irrational Muslim!" all they want
but regardless of whether I'm Muslim, atheist, Hindu, whatever-
they are kidding themselves.

I don't think Nietzsche, Sartre or Foucalt were "fervent Muslims".

The only honest approach is for atheists to go the Postmodern route. Atheism logically leads to Postmodernism and moral relativism. That is the only honest approach from those premises.

People can try to go a different route and people can insult me and try to distract from what is blatantly obvious not only to Muslims but to any unbiased observer- but I have specified the only honest route.

Of course I am a Muslim but I am not engaging in any tortured logical gymnastics here. I am merely adding 1 + 1. It's the fervent atheists here who are engaging in tortured logical gynmnastics for the sake of their predetermined conclusions- really for the sake of PR. They can't just come out into the open about where their beliefs logically lead.

Unless atheists are up-front and honest and willing to follow premises to their logical conclusions rather than merely try to insult me, I don't think a real conversation can happen.

Does atheism necesitate people engaging in logical gymnastics and pretending denying the objective existence of morality is a basis for morality? At least Nietzsche had the spine to follow his premises to the logical conclusions. Hopefully an honest atheist appears and a real conversation can follow.

Subjective morality wouldn't mean that morality isn't real, it would just mean that it's subjective — S

Okay, if you want to argue about semantics, you can argue about semantics.

The clue is in the name. The basis for subjective morality is... drum roll... subjectivity! — S

Lots of snark, no substance. How often atheists are condescending without actually having any sort of justification for their condescension. They rely on that gimmick because they lack actual substance and need a smokescreen.

But one thing's for sure, there certainly is a basis, even if you refuse to acknowledge it as such, perhaps because it doesn't suit your agenda, which appears to be to discredit these positions by any means. — S

So I'm out to discredit a position by any means necessary? And... pointing out the blatantly obvious- that moral relativism is not a basis for morality is by any means necessary??????

I mean if you want to deny the blatantly obvious and play a game about semantics, you can do that. If you want to consider moral relativism as a "basis" for morality... if your view of the word "basis" means that one can say "do whatever you want, there is no right or wrong" is a "basis" for morality.... it is what it is.... you're arguing about semantics rather than content. Your argument has no actual substance and you're not addressing any real issue, just harping on semantics like that's a substitute for real content. You are engaging in distraction from real substance rather than engaging in actual substance.

I don't get the anti-Russia stuff. I don't particularly feel opposed to Russia. I don't believe the Russians-hacked-the-elections thing either.

Anyways, I think he's going to win. I think he's going to be re-elected. I said he was going to win and no one believed me. Everyone "knew" Hillary would win. I don't bet but if I bet I think I'd put money on Trump winning. I'm pretty confident he'll win another term. I don't like him but I think he'll get another term. I think then we'll get another Democrat promising hope and change and who knows what the US will look like when that Democrat is done.

So, how is it that Trump, a person who seems only interested in promoting himself, is supported by about a third of the American population? Is it that they don't comprehend good and evil? — LD Saunders

I think that asking this indicates that one is out of touch. I think one has to have a finger on the pulse of the people to understand.

However, the leftist champaigne socialists are more interested in isolating themselves in echo chambers and bubbles, looking down their nose at the masses and unwilling to take the thinking of the masses seriously or work to understand it.

I am not saying you or anyone here is in that category- I don't know your politics. However, it certainly is an issue that the left is way, way out of touch with the masses- and increasingly so. You can't understand Trump without understanding the masses. And a lot of those masses are religious. But look how religious people are treated, for example. People want to silence us and make sure we can't speak- rather than simply hear us out and hear our side. That's how it is with the right. The left controls the media, the institutions, academia, etc. and increasingly you have the right being silenced. However, it doesn't negate the existence of the silent majority and one simply cannot understand Trump without understanding the silent majority. That means people going outside of leftist bubbles and becoming engaged with the people.

Jews, Christians, Moslems, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Jains, etc. have been busy trying to explain/defend/make sense of their religions for a long time.

Man is the author of the Gods. Our Gods generally demand a great deal more of humans than we feel like delivering on most days, so we disappoint our gods. We have to find a way to get around the problem of disappointing, angering, and enraging our various gods, less they smite us. How can our created gods harm us? Of course they can't, but bad things are always happening -- fire, wind, earthquakes, boils, itchy skin, tumors, stinging wasps, snakes, poisonous algae, ponzi schemers, lions, communists, radiation leaks, rats... there are a lot of things out there waiting to get at us, and periodically succeed. We can charge all these bad things to our Gods' accounts.

I found it liberating to just stop thinking about it from the POV that I was liable to eternal damnation--or heaven, either.

BTW, I think creating gods was a major (the major?) cultural achievement of either the very early modern period or the very late stone age period -- around 20,000-30,000 years ago, give or take 15 minutes. — Bitter Crank

You find it liberating? That doesn't verify the truthfulness of a proposition.

I see conclusions in the post but I don't see solid premises leading to them- merely assertions without backing.

There are, however, quite a few Americans who believe in a divine-command theory of morality — LD Saunders

yes... people who believe in religion... religion entails that view.... I don't see a push to silence Marxists, Aristotelians, Stoics, etc.... but if you believe in a religion- they want you silenced.....

I think even the OP lays out a groundwork for such..... so basically from the OP's premises... the only people whose views are valid are those who are non-religious.... rather than an open discussion or anything like that.... you want to arrange the rules of the game to favor your side.... and then play

(in fact the Muslim Ibn Rushd is thought by some to be the father of modern secularism, though Wikipedia as usual dumbs it down.) — SnoringKitten

woah.... I doubt Ibn Rushd was modern or a secularist.....

He was a Muslim who into philosophy.... there's this preconceived notion that people have that faith and reason are at odds... that's just false.... look at Al-Ghazali, Ibn Rushd, Thomas Aquinas... even Kant, Socrates, Hegel, and others (although the last ones I think were unorthodox)

Yes I'm against secularism. It's not a secret.

Of course there is. If morality from a secular position is necessarily subjective, then that subjectivity is the basis for secular morality. That's the basis for determining what is and isn't immoral. The contradiction arises from you saying, on the one hand, that there is no basis, but then, on the other hand, suggesting that there is a basis.

Moral relativists have a basis for morality, so you can't lack a basis for morality and be a moral relativist.

You're either not saying what you really mean or you can't do basic logic. And you've given me reason to doubt that you know much about what you're actually talking about. — S

Subjective morality would mean morality is not real- it would be "morality" without basis.

If you want to argue that baselessness is a basis and get into an argument about semantics, you can do that.

"Moral relativists have a basis for morality" is absurd. The perceived contradiction you claim is a semantic dispute, resting upon your assertion that baselessness is a base. If you believe baselessness is a base, you can believe that. I believe otherwise.

"Moral relativists have a basis for morality"- that is one of the craziest things I have read in a while."Moral relativists have a basis for morality". Wow. That's a paradox and contrary to common sense. That is quite the logical gymnastics. I'm amazed at how people can be smug without justification.

There are normative criteria to define what constitutes doing philosophy. They are pretty broad and yet what you are doing seems to fall outside their province. — Janus

Normative according to whose norms? You mean according to the norms of the Enlightenment. I don't care about the "Enlightenment".

There is simply no secular basis for morality.
— Ram

They claim that religions are immoral- but they have no basis for determining what is and isn't immoral.
— Ram

Morality from a secular position is necessarily subjective.
— Ram

they lack of a basis for morality and are moral relativists
— Ram


You've contradicted yourself. — S

There is no contradiction.

Actually, Christians - above I think I qualified that as real Christians - don't. If you meet self-proclaimed Christians who do, they aren't.

Not everyone correctly distinguishes between belief and fact. Peel those you speak to back a bit, and they should correctly revert to belief. If they don't, they're 1) ignorant, 2) not Christians, or 3) at best part Christians. Some fundamentalists fall into this latter category.

But this isn't up for debate, it's simply the fact of the matter. Move on. — tim wood

Maybe your idea of "real Christians" are liberal "Christians". Real Christians certainly believe their faith is factual.