Don't be so quick there. If your religion earns you an early death (as you are so ready to die) — VagabondSpectre

I believe that death is not the end and we shouldn't fear death. I doubt my beliefs on death alone are going to cause my life to end. Everyone is destined to die.

I'm saying that grandiose issues can cause us to lay down our lives, so we had better be sure we're right about them before we actually pick up a sword. There's no way to know which religion is correct, so we should never pick up swords in the name of religion. — VagabondSpectre

You don't know that. You don't know who is guided and who isn't. You not being guided doesn't mean no one is guided.

It really sounds like you desire Jannah first and foremost, and you only say that Allah wants you to pursue Jannah because that's convenient to what you already want. — VagabondSpectre

Well that is what you think. Allah knows what is in the human heart.

So you're not interested in what anyone else thinks, and believe that you and your beliefs are the best thing since sliced bread... Not untypical levels of arrogance... — VagabondSpectre

It is an understatement to say that Islam is far superior to mere sliced bread.

It's one of the archetypal stories found in the Abrahamic religions (Islam included). God told Abraham to sacrifice his only son, and he was ready to do it. It was a test of devotion, and it's scary that people are ready to believe they communicate with god to a degree that they (you) would actually kill other human beings, including their own son, if they believe god told them to do so. — VagabondSpectre

Yes, I'm well aware that God tested Abraham (PBUH) in that way. But I've never personally encountered any cases where a Muslim or a Christian said God told them to do that. I think it's more likely for a kid to get eaten by a shark or hit by lightning than for that to actually happen. Atheists use that as an argument but it almost never actually happens. I go off the Quran and the Sunnah, I don't hear God talking to me.

You're here proclaiming Islam to be the true religion and you're unable to even properly defend it. Isn't that a sin? When you are summoned to defend your beliefs from sincere challenge, you need to do so right? — VagabondSpectre

Allah guides whom He wills. No, God does not require me to prove Islam is the true religion or to convince you. Allah guides whom He wills. I'm not responsible for what you believe.

What about Islam is true? All of it? The parts you believe are true? The parts the most intelligent Sunni scholar believes? — VagabondSpectre

All of Islam is true.

Why should I believe in the Qur'an? — VagabondSpectre

Because it is the word of Allah.

Should I study ancient Greek texts before I dismiss Zeus as god? Telling me to read this or that isn;t going to persuade me. I'm not interested in what you've read, I'm interested in what you know and can demonstrate to be true. — VagabondSpectre

It isn't about persuading you. I've done my part by pointing in the right direction. What you do is up to you. Allah guides whom He wills. I've said this enough times that insha'Allah you might understand it.

Should you study Greek texts before dismissing Zeus?? Zeus is fictitious. Allah is not fictitious.

Believe me or don't. You're going to meet Him.

Maybe? You think?

Where are you're lofty "objective" standards at? — VagabondSpectre

Allah knows best. Right and wrong are independent of what I think.

Different religions tell different stories about what god(s) want. How do you know the set of stories you were born into or adopted are the right set of stories? — VagabondSpectre

That is a long story and I'm not interested in telling you my biography. Believe or don't.

Shia experts have similar stories about how Sunni's are the misguided ones. Stop fooling yourself. What is the evidence that shows Sunni Islam to be true and Shia Islam to be false? If I take your word for it, or the word of Sunni scholars, why shouldn't I take the word of Shia's and Shia scholars? — VagabondSpectre

"Shia experts"- no such thing. The Shia are wrong.

If you want to learn more about the Shia stuff, you would need to learn about Islam first. Then we could go into that. That is a whole other subject and you would need to go into other resources. You don't get all your knowledge off forum posts.

Which makes clear you have not the slightest idea what you're talking about. — tim wood

Hopefully you find something more interesting than semantics to argue about. But yes whether God exists or not is a matter of fact. Either that God exists is a fact or that He doesn't exist is a fact (the former is correct). Just because we can't see God doesn't mean the matter is not one of fact and I'm sure many Christians would like to say that the Bible says are facts.

The Trinity is a Sacred Mystery. Almost every Catholic in existence would agree that it doesn't make much sense. But we also would not bust a vein over it, since it was always rather well articulated that the Divine Persons are relational.

"The Catechism of the Catholic Church offers a definitive dogma of the Trinity, a dogma that has been
handed down throughout the centuries of Christianity. Three doctrines or teachings express the reality
of the dogma of the Trinity: (1) the Trinity is One, (2) the divine persons are really distinct from one
another, and (3) the divine persons exist relative to one another.
The Trinity Is One. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “We do not confess three Gods,
but one God in three Persons, the ‘consubstantial Trinity.’ The Divine Persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: ‘The Father is that which the Son
is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e., by nature
one God.’ In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215): ‘Each of the persons is that supreme
reality, viz., the divine substance, essence, or nature.’”xii Therefore, the Trinity is one God: “The Father
is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God,” as stated in the Athanasius Creed (ca. AD 350).
The three Persons are all co-eternal and co-equal and are all uncreated and omnipotent." — Akanthinos

You are a Catholic?

If you're talking about the Christian trinity (I know of no other), then be advised that real Christians never assert the tenets of their faith as facts, but rather preface their expressions of that faith with the words, "We believe." Arguing that any aspect of that faith - or any other so founded, even yours - is illogical or not factual is a red herring chasing a straw man. An irrelevancy against an irrelevancy. And I suspect you actually know better, so shame on you. — tim wood

Well if they don't believe their faith is factual then they aren't very Christian.

Then we believe what we believe based on his will and therefore are not responsible for own actions or beliefs. We believe what we believe because he wills it. You have no independence and are not in control of your own actions. — Harry Hindu

It is more complex than that. Allah chooses who He guides and Allah is Just.

We cannot "derive" morality form the mere fact someone speaks because it means there are no grounds to the argument. — TheWillowOfDarkness

The million-dollar question goes unanswered. How do we derive morality from a secular point of view?

Why? Just because someone said so? Why did they believe it? — VagabondSpectre

Humans in general are not moral. Read Revolt of the Masses if you want to learn more. Not everyone believes in the goodness of the mob.

So technically someone ought to starve to death before stealing? — VagabondSpectre

Maybe ideally. If they do it to avoid starving, I think it's permissible.

What good is your blind faith to a book which you think gives us all the answers if you cannot actually extract answers from? — VagabondSpectre

You say it's blind but there's nothing blind about it. I'm not an idiot like perhaps you assume. I simply represent a point of view which you maybe view in an arrogant way and you maybe are not used to.

I'm trying nto do "philosophy" by comparing our worldviews to see which one is more appealing, more sensical, more rational, and more moral. — VagabondSpectre

More appealing to who? I'm wondered about what is appealing to God

Yes but you tell other people what god says we should and shouldn't do. Other people say god says differently. I say you're all either dumb, deluded, or deceitful. — VagabondSpectre

Allah guides whom He wills. I recommend you read the Yusuf Ali translation of the Quran. I think you should study what it has to say before you dismiss it.

And the Shia say that the Sunni are a deviant sect. How can I tll the difference between the deviant and the true? (hint: everything is deviant or nothing is) — VagabondSpectre

There is tons of stuff discussing why the Shia are deviant and misguided. That is a whole other discussion and I would refer you to other resources. I am not an expert on the Shia. However, to understand the matter you would need to understand Islam. Study Islam first and you'll be in a better position to understand.

The truth of your position cannot be that it is true. That's not only circular, it's incoherent. Why is Islam the true one?

I need a reason to be persuaded by, otherwise the Hindu or the Buddhist will just come along and persuade me in favor of their beliefs instead of yours. I need evidence. — VagabondSpectre

The truth of Islam is that it's the true religion.

Do you want to me to type out a whole book here and then you can dismiss it in a condescending way? Allah guides whom He wills. If Allah guides you, He guides you. If He doesn't guide you, He doesn't guide you.

If you become a Hindu, it is to your loss, not to Allah's. It's not my loss either. I'm responsible for what I believe, I am not responsible for you. I've recommended that you read the Yusuf Ali translation of the Quran. If you want to learn about Islam, that is what I recommend. If you do it or not is up to you and is your responsibility.

Sometimes good things happen. Why should I assume this live is a test? Why should I not strive to avoid the bad things and promote the good things (based on our shared values)? — VagabondSpectre

We don't share values. I don't care about our alleged shared values or what you think and don't expect you to follow what I think. You think what you think, I think what I think. I am fine with that and don't expect you to think like me and don't care about what others think. I go off what I think.

Why should assume this life is a test? Well... do you believe in the Quran? It seems- no. Well, if you believe in the Quran you believe this life is a test. I believe in the Quran. If you don't, you don't.

If you think that god wants you to execute your child, please check yourself into a mental institution so that they can make sure you're not insane and are actually hearing the commands of the one true god. I'm sure they'll understand, as will your son, and it will be a very happy event, with flowers and dancing. — VagabondSpectre

You said what would I do if God told me to sacrifice my child. I never said anything about God telling me to do something like that and I don't hear God telling me to do things. I go off the Quran and the Sunnah. If God suddenly appeared to me and I believed it was God.... I guess so. But I seriously doubt that would happen and I've known a lot of Muslims and Christians and I've never encountered a case where that occurred.

In what sense? In what way is it not valid? What in this context does "valid" mean. — tim wood

It's unsound. It doesn't add up. I'm not a dictionary.

This works:

val·id
ˈvaləd/Submit
adjective
(of an argument or point) having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent.

Morality is secular precisely because it is objective.

If it were religiously defined, moral character would cease to be defined on the basis of the morality of an action, instead being based upon a whim which religious belief someone belonged to. Since morality is eternal, that's to say it does not depend on belonging to one religion or another, it is of secular character.

Regardless of a person particular religious beliefs or politics, morality hold itself. It cannot morph, present or alter on account of what religion (if any) someone belongs to. One cannot be mortal or not simply be belonging to a religion.

A theocratic morality is no better than claiming your actions have moral virtue because you belong to a football team. Or a political group. Or because you like mints. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Silliness.

There is no secular basis for morality. Explain how it's possible and how you derive rulings.

Your framework has not been shown to be philosophical, but merely religious, and hence there is no place for it on a philosophy forum. A religious framework can become philosophical if you can provide at least minimally philosophically acceptable arguments to support it. You have not done that, so, in other words you are on the wrong forum trying to engage with the wrong people. — Janus

Philosophical according to what? According to what you define as philosophy? I don't care.

that is up to you my friend! What do you think is right!? I think love, happiness, freedom and care is right, and these things are greater than any conception. Im not interested in telling people what is right or wrong for whatever reason based upon whatever. I am interested in agreeing, colloquially, with people and premising feelings.

Im not going to murder someone not because I think it is wrong. But because I have no desire to murder and i think it is grotesque. Why should I need an absolute? — Blue Lux

Well if you have no desire to commit a sin, then that's not really much of a test. The test is not what do you do when you don't have the desire. The test is when you do have the desire.

If you were born in India you might be Hindu, and you would be fervently pursuing their values as opposed to your own. If you were born to atheist parents maybe you would be fervently pursuing irreligion and reason... — VagabondSpectre

I am for reason. Islam is for reason. As far as India... I know Muslims from India. I also know a devout Christian who was born to atheist parents. Not everyone follows what their parents believe.

At first when you said people in general are not moral, I was going to outright disagree, people are moral especially in general, but not I'm starting to think that you might just have severely backwards moral beliefs, and so you think "live and let live" is actually somehow immoral... — VagabondSpectre

And if you obey most of those upon the earth, they will mislead you from the way of Allah . They follow not except assumption, and they are not but falsifying.

-Surah Al-An'am [6:116]

Maybe you believe humans in general are moral. I don't.

Why must I sacrifice my life in the first place? Shouldn't we all just get along and value life? — VagabondSpectre

The world is not a Disney movie. Humans are born into struggle. Things happen.

So "do not steal" should not always be obeyed, right? Doesn't that make it subjective or relative or at least not objective? — VagabondSpectre

I didn't say that. The context is considered. I don't think there's a context where theoretically a person should steal food. However, a starving person stealing a loaft of bread is different than a rich person doing it. There's nothing subjective about it. The situations are objectively different.

So you aren't willing to honestly asses the truth of your own beliefs, and choose consciously to dogmatically accept and pursue them? — VagabondSpectre

The truth of Islam is that it's true. You have your way of thinking, I have mine.

And what if she IS forced? She can then flee and presumably have sex outside of that marriage, right? Even though the original husband may still want her stoned to death for adultery.... — VagabondSpectre

If a woman is forced into marriage... I have no idea. She's not supposed to be forced into marriage. If that happens, it's against Islam and I'm not sure how the situation should be dealt with. Allah knows best.

You said "I hope fervently for a good death", and you gave examples of randomly dying at a certain place or dying in defense of your family. My notion of a good death is old age and ideally surrounded by loved ones. Is that tragic? You don;t seem to care about other people (or yourself) so long as you pass your own test. — VagabondSpectre

Are you out to impose your framework on me? I am simply explaining my point of view. You can accept it or not accept it.

Your personal beliefs won't stop other people from rallying around a Caliph and potentially accusing you of heresy for not also rallying when asked. The Shiites are just wrong, right? — VagabondSpectre

I'm around quite a bit of Muslims and haven't had any problem like you describe. As for the Shia, the Shia are a deviant sect.

If you want to tell consenting adults what they can and cannot do with their own genitals, then yes we have very different views. Why you think you have any business telling other people how or why or with whom to have sex remains a mystery to me. Should we stone homosexuals to death? — VagabondSpectre

I don't tell other people what they should or shouldn't do. God dictates what we should and shouldn't do.

So if god asks you to sacrifice your only son as a test, you would do it? — VagabondSpectre

Hopefully.

In the context of philosophy an argument from authority is not considered to be sufficient. You would need to make a further argument as to why the authority is correct; in which case the authority itself becomes redundant. You have not done that. — Janus

You have your framework, I have mine.

The atheistic position does not need some transpersonal authority, which somehow is anthropomorphic, to settle the affairs of a mammalian brain. There are methods by which a person can figure out what they should or should not do which are simply much better than adhering to the rules of a bronze age mythology. — Blue Lux

And what are those methods?

mhmmm.. and what percentage of muslim people are inbred? — Blue Lux

No idea. Marrying your cousin is different than marrying your sister, though. I think it's better not to marry a cousin, though. https://islamqa.info/en/72263

I get that cousin marriages are prevalent in certain places but I think it's more a cultural thing. It's allowed in Islam but I don't think it's recommended.

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

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

No, not exactly. When two people disagree about pumpkin-spice lattes, it's highly unlikely that it will ever come to arrows. When the most grandiose imaginable purpose/ends are at stake, people seem much more willing to kill for them. — VagabondSpectre

Strange. I thought I posted a response.

Anyways, I will be very brief insha'Allah.

By the logic you are espousing, I think people will only be able to disagree on things like pumpkin-spice lattes.

No, this is a discussion forum, not a XYZtube platform. Show me you did the work and that there's something to engage before I bother to do so, otherwise it's just flamebait. — Akanthinos

Okay, if you don't want to examine the evidence, you don't want to examine the evidence. It is what it is.

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

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

You promote your position, I promote mine.

I am afraid of death though — VagabondSpectre

I'm not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why?

Free ticket to paradise?

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

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

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

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

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

The world isn't run by pious religious people.

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

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

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

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

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

I think in certain extreme situations a person can lie.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.

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

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

Palestine should belong to the Palestinians.

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

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

Why should I take your word for it?

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

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

The moral life is entirely secular. — Marcus de Brun

Would you happen to be related to Marquis de Sade?

If there is a reasonable attack against the modern doctrine of consubstantial Trinity in the mess that is the OP, I cannot see it. — Akanthinos

Go through the material. They explain it better than I can. Are people interested in examination and research and the truth or no?

The title of the OP is "The triinity is invalid." What does that mean? — tim wood

The Trinity is not valid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I also think you are misusing the term, "liberal". The people that are commonly called "liberals" in America are actually authoritarian socialists, not liberals at all. Libertarians are the only true liberals. — Harry Hindu

Also, just so you understand- I am against liberalism. I am not talking about The Democratic Party. I mean liberals.

I don't believe in liberalism. I am well aware of this line of thought that the liberals are wrong because they have strayed from liberalism. However, I'm against 19th century liberalism and previous liberalism too. I am not a liberal. Not remotely.

In fairness, though, I think it is the "modern" liberals I was referring to. But even the old-school liberals... I don't have anything to do with that either. I'm not for either of the two.

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

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

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

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

Ah.

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

Babies are born pure and then corrupted.

No, not exactly. When two people disagree about pumpkin-spice lattes, it's highly unlikely that it will ever come to arrows. When the most grandiose imaginable purpose/ends are at stake, people seem much more willing to kill for them. — VagabondSpectre

I don't know. If you have an especially argumentative wife, the pumpkin-spice latte dispute could get ugly.

Okay, so you are saying when it comes to the Big Issues, people might start going at it with arrows.

So should discourse be limited to pumpkin-spice lattes? Following that logic, I think that's where it leads.

What about the desire to live and to be happy among other happy humans is tragic?

Compared to your desire to go to heaven and be eternally happy perhaps?

What if you're wrong about the existence of heaven and the nature or existence of god? — VagabondSpectre

We were made for more. We must embrace our true purpose and strive towards being God's agents on earth!!!!- as we were created to be!

Now my desire to attain Jannah..... Allah has said if I'm not mistaken that we should strive towards Jannah..... in any case from what I understand, Allah says we should strive for Jannah. So my goal should be Jannah. I want to serve Allah, I want to obey Allah.

What if I'm wrong?? What if the atheist is wrong?!

If I'm wrong... eh. I can live with non-existence. But if I'm right and the atheist is wrong....... eek.

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually, this is very easy.

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

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

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

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

How would you respond?

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

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

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

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

Hm. Okay.

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

but we look at Islam and Christianity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay, the third thing- freedom from oppression.

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

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

Well, according to you philosophy is not about filling a vacuum. I believe otherwise. That's not ALL it is. But I do think it's an aspect. I think those who get really, really into philosophy who don't believe in religion.... I think those people were probably lacking in religiosity to begin with, had doubts, etc. I think they were already oriented in that direction.

I said refine the question.

What is the role traditionally played by god? — VagabondSpectre

You want me to elaborate. Okay.

I give examples- traditionally, God dictates our ends. God tells us what's right and wrong.

You have rightly denied that Reason can determine our Ends. If only you could give Sam Harris a talking-to....

Anyways.......

O.K... That seems a bit harsh... — VagabondSpectre

The Athenians didn't think so.

What happens when two people both claim to have the word of god but disagree about what god's word actually is? — VagabondSpectre

It varies. It can involve a quiet disagreement. It can involve arrows, swords, bullets, etc.

Same as when people have beliefs regarding anything

Well I deeply desire to go on living (but not at any cost). I have a great deal of empathy for my friends and family, and even strangers who I will never meet. I want the world to be a place filled with life and happiness as opposed to death and suffering, and so my actions in life are oriented around enjoying it, and helping others to enjoy it too. — VagabondSpectre

This is tragic and I think you know it on some level. You need God. Life needs to have meaning.

Feelings (empathy in this example) and desire can't give life meaning. We need our Creator. Humans can disagree on their theological beliefs and it can get ugly but we nevertheless must seek connection with God.

As far as deciding ends- God can certainly dictate ends. The Quran is full of such, so is the Bible if that's what you believe in- even the Bhagavad-Gita has such (from a Hindu perspective).

You say Reason can't dictate ends. You say God can't either. Of course, this is false. God can most certainly send Prophets (PBUH) with commandments on stone tablets coming down mountain-tops.

You don't believe Reason can send prophets down mountaintops with commandments on stone tablets? I agree but I think Plato thought otherwise. The Marxists too. I think there have indeed been many who thought and think such.

If Reason cannot dictate ends- what dictates ends according to you?

"Maybe something about exploring philosophy tends to leave religious commitment less intact?"

Maybe having religious commitment less intact leads one to explore philosophy. "Nature abhors a vacuum".

I don't need to refine the OP. You've initiated a dialogue and that I think is what an OP should lead to.

I don't think I've said anything in this thread that I'm for or against philosophers being atheists who tend towards socialism. I was simply curious if people here are oriented in that direction.

I believe in God but I don't view "philosophers" as a barometer of truth.

What "philosophers" believe I think depends on who controls the institutions.

I think Socrates was a sort of heretic, Plato was a sort of heretic and so naturally their children tend towards being heretics. I don't particularly admire Socrates, I think he probably had it coming. Nor do I admire philosophy. I don't view philosophy as this lofty thing or have a lofty view of it. People lose their faith and seek to fill a void. Thus philosophy.

But that's another discussion. I was just curious if people here tend to be atheists with socialist tendencies.

You, I see, are an atheist but favor a mixed economy if I'm not mistaken. I am curious though if this forum is mostly left/liberal.

Thank you, that is a very interesting perspective.

What form would you want a new Enlightenment to take? What form do you think a new Enlightenment is likely to take?

No, heterosexuals should not imitate the culture of practicing homosexuals.

Men and women are not valued for the same things, that is why differents traits are praised in the two.

Democracy was a bad idea in the first place and I think it's a variation of "might makes right".

This discussion is sick. What gives you the right to decide who can and can't have children, oh would-be eugenicist?