Good argument Moliere, I can't think of a clear reason why it wouldn't apply to theists also.

I'll check out the reference.

Yes, looks like an interesting and informative read. Thank you for the reference

What confuses me is the amount of assumption present in anyone who not only accepts natural evolution as fact but assumes it is also correctly and wholly understood. If one questions this premise, the entire structure fails flat. Is it not just as big an assumption then if God or gods exist?

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.

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.

Humans are born pure and become corrupt. — Ram

Can you present a persuasive argument against the thought that theism or religious beliefs in general are not a corruption of this innate moral base that you propose?

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?

I try to be respectful as well. — Ram

Wait. 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?

Can you present a persuasive argument against the thought that theism or religious beliefs in general are not a corruption of this innate moral base that you propose?
— praxis

Persuasive to who? Persuasive to you? — Ram

Yes, persuasive to me.

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

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.

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.

??? It is the exact issue.

??? It is the exact issue. — praxis

Then persuade me of your position on the issue.

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

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.

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.

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. — Ram

Would you find it insulting if I suggested that theist morality supports terrorism? I could show you this video, but I think you get the point.

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.

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

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

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.

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, according to your belief in an innate moral sense and its potential for corruption.

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.

So far all that I can see from you is that as long as something comes from God, then it is good.

But why should I believe that? Why should you? What supports this belief? — Moliere

Because otherwise chaos would ensue! The sun would melt stuff and some such. Of course, there's no way to actually know that, like much of what he has said. It just comes from an old storybook and is taken up on faith. We can know that there'd be chaos and that things would melt if the sun were to move close enough to the Earth - we can know that through science - but not that this apparent order is maintained by Allah. It might be comforting to believe that order is maintained by Allah, but I don't think that I could believe that if I tried. I'm just not that gullible.

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. — Ram

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?

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.

↪Ram You think atheists who are moral realists are not consistent -- but the only reason you give here is that because moral realism can only come from God. That is just begging the question — Moliere

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

ChatteringMonkey is an atheist too. He himself took down your premise. I think it's interesting how you took your false premise and ran with it:

That is just begging the question in favor of your position -- that it is whatever God happens to say that makes something good or not. That's not a demonstration of inconsistency, that's a statement of implausibility: you find it difficult to believe that it's possible. But, at least logically speaking -- meaning the three basic rules of logic -- there is nothing logically inconsistent about the belief that God does not exist, and there is some moral statement that is true.

So logical necessity isn't at play. So far all that I can see from you is that as long as something comes from God, then it is good.

But why should I believe that? Why should you? What supports this belief?

So far it just seems like you're asserting it over and over again. So it would seem nothing supports this belief. It's just something you happen to believe. Which, from an outside perspective like my own, who does not accept this belief just because you said it, appears to be much like the belief of some dude making stuff up.

After all, it may be good to accept what God says. But surely it is possible that some dude just made that up. At the very least, if Allah is the one and true God, then there are religions that exist which amount to much the same thing -- since they do not submit to Allah, they submit to another God, clearly they are just following what some dude made up one time, rather than submitting to Allah.

What gives your belief more credence than what someone else is making up? Why should anyone accept it at all? — Moliere

I pointed out something obvious and it was a problem because I'm a Muslim who said it. However, atheists don't go after consistent atheists like ChatteringMonkey, Nietzsche, Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir, pretty much every existentialist (except Kierkegaard) and postmodernist philosopher ever when they make the same point. You even used the term "begging the question" which is a term which supposedly has to do with logic (I actually have to look the term up as I forget what that means). All that on the basis of a false premise!

Now I already said:

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. — Ram

you used the phrase:

t will also just sort of assume the belief from the outset in a way that rational disagreement or discussion couldn't take place. — Moliere

so I got the impression you are or were trying to find some sort of common ground. How much common ground is there exactly? The both of us have to accept that the other is reasoning from a completely different set of premises. You haven't seen me prove God exists. I haven't seen you prove God doesn't exist. We both are operating from predetermined premises. Your premise, determined prior to this discussion, is that God doesn't exist. My premise, determined prior to this discussion is that God does exist.

I don't believe God exists on the basis of abstract arguments. I believe God exists on the basis of experiences I've had- on the basis of things I've seen and experienced. You haven't seen or experienced the things I've seen and experienced. You don't know what I've seen and experienced. I know atheists like to portray it as though experience is not valid and we can only go off abstract arguments. However, I haven't seen any atheists prove that experience is not valid and that a person shouldn't trust their own experiences. If you have such a proof, you're welcome to demonstrate it.

Because I believe in God on the basis of experience and things I've seen... as well as some other things... I can't convey to you why I believe in God.

I have explained elsewhere- "Reason" is used as a codeword for atheism. That which is atheistic is defined as "Reason" and that which is against atheism is defined as against "Reason".

Because many have this shallow view of what reason supposedly is, I will insha'Allah explicitly show how reasoning is being used:

1) I believe on the basis of experience and things I've seen (as well as some other things)
2) Because you haven't experienced my experiences, I can't fully convey to you why I believe in God

thus I'm not really trying to prove to you that God exists. If Allah wills, He will guide you.

The topic of this thread is not "Why God exists". The topic is there is no secular basis for morality. The problem people had is that I'm a Muslim who said it. Plenty of atheists have described the same thing and it wasn't really controversial (except with Marxists... Marxists were not too fond of it to my understanding). If an atheist said it among other atheists, I don't think it would really be controversial (except with Marxist types).

Is there anything in your belief that we should submit to Allah that makes it something more than what Ram wants? If you say Allah, then I'd submit that this isn't very convincing, at least -- not anymore convincing than the atheist who says he can be good without God in some sort of objective way without saying much more than that other than repeating himself. In which case, from my perspective at least, you're applying different standards to different claims and asking more from the atheist than what you ask from yourself. — Moliere

A lot of theists believe in God on the basis of experiences. Atheists tend to disbelieve on the basis of abstract arguments. This is a difference between the two.

I accept the fact that you believe differently. Mao said very bluntly that political power flows from the barrel of a gun. I forget the exact wording in Wretched of the Earth but Frantz Fanon said something like that power is sovereign.

Ultimately, who controls the state is who controls the state. It isn't based on one human's reasoning or another human's reasoning. The idea that I am some sort of subhuman (which I'm not attributing to you) who doesn't use reasoning is fallacious. We both use reason but from completely different premises. Your reasoning doesn't make sense from my premises and my reasoning doesn't make sense from your premises. If you run things, I am sure you will run things on the basis of your premises. If I run things, I am sure I will insha'Allah run things on the basis of my premises. We operate from different premises and I accept that.

I think you write as though I want to convince you. I believe if God wills, God will convince you. If God wills, you will, for example, have a strange experience which goes contrary to your materialist beliefs and forces you to revise your worldview.

Clearly you haven't read the people you talk about: Sartre, de Beauvoir and even Nietzsche think morality and values are objective... just true on the basis of the meaning of the world itself, rather than granted or added by a realm beyond it.

ChatteringMonkey is an atheist too. He himself took down your premise. — Ram

Then you'd just need to demonstrate that morality under moral relativism has no basis, which isn't possible without stretching the meaning of "basis" out of all proportion. But good luck with that! What did you call it? Logical gymnastics. Morality under moral relativism has a basis in whatever it is relative to, obviously.

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. — Ram

For example? Are you suggesting that you’re unable to at least outline the circumstances where killing is not immoral?

It worse than that. To argue morality is "relative" in a sense of outcomes being right for particular people, objectivity is assumed. The circumstances of one individual are understood as a true moral justification. We find that any "realtive" postion defending an individual circumstances is just objectivity.

With respect to to "moral relativism", this leaves two options: either admit to objectivity or deny moral significance entirely.

In any case, the question of God or otherwise is irrelevant because this is a necessary truth of concepts of morality itself. God is not making the difference between the presence of moral turths or not.

Clearly you haven't read the people you talk about: Sartre, de Beauvoir and even Nietzsche think morality and values are objective... just true on the basis of the meaning of the world itself, rather than granted or added by a realm beyond it. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I've read all three of them. They were all moral relativists (except maybe Nietzsche... with Nietzsche I think it's complicated and debatable).

Then you'd just need to demonstrate that morality under moral relativism has no basis, which isn't possible without stretching the meaning of "basis" out of all proportion. But good luck with that! What did you call it? Logical gymnastics. Morality under moral relativism has a basis in whatever it is relative to, obviously. — S

Word games. What is the basis of "morality" for moral relativism? One's whims and fancies? That is the "basis"?