Not according to any moral code I would support, how about you? — universeness

And upon what basis don't you support it, and upon what criteria would I be wrong not to agree with you. Why is your basis applicable to me?

By way of example, the tree is either there or not. My opinion is irrelevant. Is the true for the immorality of the rapist?

Your point that they would be immoral even if every person in existence declared their actions moral is a nonsense question as such a state of affairs has never happened and never will. — universeness

This just shows an inability to understand how to reason through the use of a hypothetical. It is logically irrelevant that the hypothetical hasn't occurred. Whether a tree, for example, would exist if the world denied it, isn't meaningfully answered by denying such ever occurred, but it is answered by recognizing that an object's existence isn't dependent upon a person's admission it exists.

No it's more than that, it's a supernatural significance which has NEVER been demonstrated as having an existent. — universeness

This is really just more of your inability to abstract. I'm saying that that your elevation of humanity to special status makes it logically indistinct from what the religious do with God. If you have no supernatural basis for the holiness you decree for humanity, why did you choose humanity over plants?

Humans are significant, yes and they are much more important than money, or property or the personal ego and demands of those who insist that they are superior, — universeness

Why?

No it's more important, it's a powerful survival instinct. — universeness

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Capitalism seems to work, but I don't know that I'd call it intrinsically cooperative. This just seems your idiosyncratic view of morality

Maybe you should put that rather naive statement to those who work with such offenders every day. — universeness

They cooperate with rapists so the rapists can get their lot of raping in and the non-rapists can get a little of what they want? I thought we locked rapists up without concern for their wishes.

The two quotes above should make my reasons for commenting on my personal happiness, crystal clear. — universeness

But it doesn't.

[deleted]

Once we assume a creator and a plan, it makes humans objects of a cruel experiment whereby we are created to be sick and commanded to be well.” — universeness

This doesn't follow. Why couldn't the plan be we are created perfect and will die perfect?

This seems an attack on the doctrine of original sin and the concept of eternal damnation. It's not applicable against theism generally, but just certain religious belief systems.

But maybe Hitchens' quote here is better elaborated upon contextually to whatever else he was saying because this seems so obviously incorrect as a general comment.

My theism requires a creator. That's it. With it comes the power to create. From it, derives purpose, meaning, and a basis for morality missing in secular humanism. You cannot have an absolute morality without something anchoring it beyond human reason, which means murder is wrong unless I think it's not. It also establishes humanity as holy, sacred, and separated from all else. — Hanover

But that just sounds like a magic spell - it seems to be declaring that purpose, sacredness and objective morality exist because god exists. Presto! Can you explain how you know that a god makes this possible? Isn't it simply the case that theists formulate a subjective morality based on what they think a god wants? The personal preferences of theists seem to be the foundation of god-based morality. Hence the broad range and incompatible moral views theists hold, even within the one religion.

Your claim that absolute morality can only exist if there is a guarantee of that absolute morality is reasonable to a point, but it doesn't seem tied to anything substantive. Isn't it like saying absolute morality exists if there is absolute morality? I'm not clear how you have demonstrated 1) That there is a god 2) How you know that god is the foundation of morality. 3) How you or anyone knows what this god's morality consists of.

I'm sure your account of god is more subtle and philosophical than anthropomorphic and personal, but I wonder how you know anything about this 'entity' that can be used to guide any practices or choices made in life.

Yes, the onus IS on you to explain further, or else any discussion regarding your irreligious but still theist status, terminates, and you neither gain nor lose so why be a member of a discussion website? — universeness

No. The point here is to learn to not make assumptions when people make statements about their beliefs.

How can such be evolving if you have already declared it supreme?
I assume this intelligence you type about is not omniscient, otherwise, again, how can it 'evolve' further.

We're all connected to this source; all life forms are.
— Noble Dust
What is the mechanism by which this connection you speak of functions?
Where do you suggest this source is located?
If you declare this source ineffable, then how can you make any comment as to it's existence? — universeness

This system of belief is not beholden to rational thought, so none of these arguments have any meaning in relation to it.

In what sense? Which Hindu concept are you referring to? The concept of Brahma? Vishnu? Shiva? — universeness

I suppose Brahma, although I'm hazy on Hinduism. It's not important to me whether I'm right or not about the comparison; I'm not a Hindu.

Bad government yes and we fight that to, and the existence of bad government, does not in any way excuse the pernicious affects of religion. — universeness

I didn't say that bad government excuses bad religion.

It's like saying the existence of 'rape and torture' are more tolerable because murder exists. I assume you are familiar with '2 wrongs don't make a right.' — universeness

No it's not. You are indeed putting words in my mouth.

:fire:

You've got a few choices here with your secular humanism: (1) accept a subjective morality but chase the elusive idea that your there are universal subjective truths (which there aren't), (2) use secular terms to appease yourself that you're not actually a theist, or (3) accept the nihilism inherent in the position — Hanover

False trilemma ...
(1) n/a
(2) n/a
(3) non-sectarianism =/= "nihilism" :roll:

As I understand it, the ethical objective of secular humanism, faciltated by pedagogy and public policy, is non-sectarian, eusocial flourishing of human individuals. Esteemable in principle but, as history shows, woefully uneven and inadequate in practice; however, better than all / most of the major sectarian alternatives – especially for women and girls, homosexuals, ethnic / color minorities, natural & social sciences, nonreligious arts, as well as freethinkers & nonbelievers.

Anyway, as I discern it, Hanover, answering a mystery with a greater mystery actually isn't intelligible. Both "God created it" and "God commands it" only beg metaphysical and ethical questions, respectively, which constitutes, IMO, passive nihilism (i.e. literal make-believe). Plato's Euthyphro and Epicurus' Riddle make this abundantly clear to those of us without an overwhelming emotional – self-serving/flattering – need for 'providence' (or magical guarantees).

This system of belief is not beholden to rational thought ... — Noble Dust

I appreciare your honesty.

Anyway, as I discern it, answering a mystery with a greater mystery actually isn't intelligible. — 180 Proof

What then makes ethical realism intelligible? Without ethical realism, how do you avoid nihilism?

What then makes ethical realism intelligible? — Hanover

Grounding ethics in the real world problems – facticity – of the flourishing (contra languishing) of natural beings. To wit: 'Why be morally good?' is nearly synonymous with 'Why be physically & mentally healthy?' or 'Why be ecologically sustainable?' or 'Why be socially & politically just?" Answer: In order, as natural beings, to cultivate the flourishing (contra languishing) of as many natural beings as possible.

Notice that when Hillel the Elder was asked to summarize the Torah, he did not reply: What God finds hateful, do not do to anyone. 'Myths of gods' were (are) only excuses (superstitions) for socially admonishing, even punishing (scapegoating), moral wrongdoing but, as mere question-beggars, gods do not intelligibly justify anything.

Without ethical realism, how do you avoid nihilism?

False dichotomy.

Without ethical realism, how do you avoid nihilism?

Recognize that it is an aspect of humanity's evolved nature, for things to matter to people, and that the nonexistence of moral facts doesn't change the fact that things matter to people. Then act in harmony with your nature. (Not necessarily the way I would put it to a psychopath.)

Grounding ethics in the real world problems – facticity – of the flourishing (contra languishing) of natural beings. To wit: 'Why be morally good?' is nearly synonymous with 'Why be physically & mentally healthy?' or 'Why be ecologically sustainable?' or 'Why be socially & politically just?" Answer: In order, as natural beings, to cultivate the flourishing (contra languishing) of as many natural beings as possible. — 180 Proof

I appreciate the effort in grounding the ethical in the empirically measurable because that would seem a logical approach for someone who desires a scientifically based ethic, but it would seem to fail on a couple of grounds.

First, it over prioritizes the moral significance of personal behaviors that have typically been falling out of favor to be considered of moral value in Western culture. Things like drug use, sexual freedoms, risk taking behavior and the like are generally well accepted as moral, and considered immoral to restrain, despite many of those decisions being obviously unhealthy.

Second, I'm not convinced that an unjust decision must result in reduced societal flourishing. It's a nice thought to think, for example, that brutal honesty will lend itself to greater happiness, but it doesn't always seem the case. We can hypothesize that in the end things will be better if we're moral, but such takes a certain amount of faith.

As a rabbi joked with me, he told me that in the end, everything will work out, so if things are bad, be happy it's not yet the end.

False dichotomy. — 180 Proof

My question wasn't rhetorical, as if to argue either an absolute ethic or nihilism. I was asking why it's not a dichotomy.

act in harmony with your nature — wonderer1

Given that our species nature is real (i.e. the fact that there are things which are bad, harmful, suffering-inducing to do to our kind), acting towards one another in harmony with our species nature is 'moral realism', no?

My question wasn't rhetorical, as if to argue either an absolute ethic or nihilism. I was asking why it's not a dichotomy. — Hanover

Simply because there's a third option of moral pragmatism, a fourth is eudaimonism, a fifth is dis/utilitarianism, a sixth is deontologism, etc. Anyway, I'll stick with my rabbi Hillel's pre-scientific yet naturalistic, ethical principle:

What you find hateful [harmful], do not do to anyone.

What you find hateful [harmful], do not do to anyone.

That actually is moral nihilism. It's saying that the higher law is love. So the answer would be that the only alternative to moral realism is nihilism, but a nihilist isn't necessarily a monster. It could be a very loving, self sacrificing individual.

Given that our species nature is real (i.e. the fact that there are things which are bad, harmful, suffering-inducing to do to our kind), acting towards one another in harmony with our species nature is 'moral realism', no?

I'm inclined to think so, but I'm not well enough informed about the way vocabulary is used by philosophers discussing ethics to feel confident making an argument for it.

it seems to be declaring that purpose, sacredness and objective morality exist because god exists. — Tom Storm

I'm saying that morality cannot exist without God. Within God's definition is the moral. So it's not that morality exists because God exists; it's that if God exists, morality exists, and if God doesn't exist, morality doesn't exist.

If I declare moral realism, where is this moral realm?

I've no idea what you're saying.

I don't either.

I'm saying that morality cannot exist without God. Within God's definition is the moral. So it's not that morality exists because God exists; it's that if God exists, morality exists, and if God doesn't exist, morality doesn't exist. — Hanover

How do you know that?

If I declare moral realism, where is this moral realm? — Hanover

Buggered if I know.

I don't either. — BC

Morality is typically defined as a collection of rules. Moral realism says these rules have their source in something that transcends the human psyche.

The golden rule requires a person to look within, to their own love for themselves to find the right path. Love replaces rules. The golden rule is moral nihilism.

wtf ...

Morality is typically defined as a collection of rules.
Moral realism says these rules have their source in something that transcends the human psyche.
The golden rule requires a person to look within, to their own love for themselves to find the right path.
Love replaces rules.

The golden rule is moral nihilism. — frank

The first 4 sentences are coherent. The last, 5th sentence, doesn't follow.

"Moral nihilism is the meta-ethical view that nothing is morally right or morally wrong." I kind of doubt that is what Jesus (and other holy men) had in mind.

I can possibly see a bit of why you are reaching for moral nihilism. "Love" may seem like an altogether arbitrary and capricious rule to follow. It isn't.

"Love" in the Golden Rule means "love your neighbor in the same way, the same degree, you love yourself". Presumably, you want what is good for you, what is beneficial, pleasing, healthy etc. That's the substance of what love provides for your relationships with others. Or "behave toward others the way you would like them to behave toward you". Presumably, you like people to treat you well. So, do likewise to others. That isn't so mysterious, is it?

Those principles are not moral nihilism, because "love" is a positive value--not whatever we feel like doing upon checking within our beloved minds.

As I understand it, moral nihilism is an extremely subjective system of morality -- whatever you feel inside. Guidance by love has to meet a standard of normal self-caring. Clearly, someone who is sick in mind, hates themselves, and loathes their own existence, will probably be an all-around unpleasant person and not demonstrate much love.

Love, as a guiding principle, turns out to be a demanding master. Dorothy Day summarized the difficulty in the title of her autobiography -- A Harsh and Dreadful Love (that being the love that Christ bids us give 'the least of our brothers and sisters'. She began serving the very poor in the 'houses of hospitality' she established as part of the Catholic Worker movement, and found it to be immensely rewarding and at the same time very corrosive. The needs were so extreme, the resources always short, and many of the people they served were at their wit's end and pretty difficult to deal with. (She lived in the houses of hospitality -- it wasn't a 9 to 5 job.)

The first 4 sentences are coherent. The last, 5th sentence, doesn't follow. — BC

I was asking you to think outside the box for a second. Morality is a code of conduct. You can't codify the dictates of love, so the golden rule is nihilistic. "Love and do what you will.". That was Augustine's interpretation.

It's meaningful to me to see it as nihilism. If it's not meaningful to you, that's fine with me.

Fair enough,

St. Augustine also prayed to God to make him chaste -- but not yet. A similar statement was made by Martin Luther -- "sin boldly, but let your trust in Christ be stronger" (edited for brevity)

I read about the ethics of love in a book on situational ethics (by Fletcher?). Yes, if one decides to get out of the box, to drop the 10 commandments, the list of laws in the Pentateuch, or Hammurabi's code, and let love be one's guide, one pretty much has to think out of the box, at least to get one bearings.

The people like Dorothy Day whose life I find admirable and inspiring, may have been guided by simple Christian love, but they also dug deep into Christian tradition for more specific guidance, and found it.

when the thesis Hitchen's was opposing is not being argued for here. — Paine

What??? :rofl:
Mr Dust posted:
" I think the notion that religion is inherently bad because of the suffering it has caused is misguided
— Noble Dust"
Christopher Hitchens spent most of his adult life debating others based on his insistence that ALL religion IS inherently bad Mr Dust IS INDEED arguing against that position, as the quote above CLEARLY indicates. My label of 'nonsense' towards your complaint stands.

"Yahweh is, of course, proposed to be the same god as the Christian Jehovah.
What is your understanding of the proposed connections between Yahweh and Jehovah?"

That they are the same? I've never looked into this nor have I ever been compelled to wonder. There may or may not be some truth there, I don't really know.

I know of El, and Yaweh and Jehovah, and i've always heard and assumed they were the same. I always address God as "Heavenly Father." Whatever the truth may be on the matter, I believe God is understanding of the limitations we have in ascertaining the truth.

With God being a loving Father, none of this causes me any sort of wonder or doubt regarding the matter.

Frank said something very interesting and enigmatic:

"It's not two entities. It's two different vocalizations of the Tetragrammaton."

I've seen the movie Pi...

OK, and should they decide to enslave those of a different tribe, then that's moral? — Hanover

Not according to any moral code I would support, how about you? — universeness

And upon what basis don't you support it — Hanover

My humanity and my empathy towards my fellow humans and my support of standards such as the golden rule.

and upon what criteria would I be wrong not to agree with you. — Hanover

The judgement of your fellows who hopefully would label you a selfish, nasty individualist who only cares about himself and you would also be wrong, imo, as the result could be that you are more ostracised from your community.

This just shows an inability to understand how to reason through the use of a hypothetical. It is logically irrelevant that the hypothetical hasn't occurred. — Hanover

Hypothetical projections can be useful, especially in leading edge science when 'brain storming.'
Hypotheticals on the issue of human morality are almost utterly useless. Judgement on a case by case basis is the best approach imo. REAL every day experience and REAL every day events require REAL application of a moral code, based on a secular approach, applied by a completely non-theistic judiciary.
A religious judiciary is utterly vile. Would you like to be judged based on biblical or sharia codes?

This is really just more of your inability to abstract. I'm saying that that your elevation of humanity to special status makes it logically indistinct from what the religious do with God. — Hanover

No, you seem to have a complete blind spot here. Matt Dillahunty often starts his call-in show on Jimmy Snow's youtube channel, 'The line,' by asking theists to call in and explain what is is they believe and why they believe it. YOU mostly avoid offering ANY worthwhile detail, regarding these questions. You just skirt around the edges, obfuscating and holding up shiney's in the hope of misdirecting others.
There is a very clear difference in the status that secular humans assign humanity and the status theist's such as yourself assign humanity. I don't employ terms such as 'holy' and 'sacred,' YOU DO. You know exactly the different status YOU assign to YOURSELF as a theist.

If you have no supernatural basis for the holiness you decree for humanity, why did you choose humanity over plants? — Hanover

This doesn't follow. Why couldn't the plan be we are created perfect and will die perfect? — Hanover

The two quotes above CLEARLY reveal the status YOU covet for humanity, or more accurately, YOURSELF. This is the arrogant delusion your theism burdens you with. You should free yourself of this nonsense and ugly measure of what it means to be a 'godly human.' Then you can OWN your OWN awe and wonder of being alive and experiencing the world as a mentally free thinker.

Why don't you explain the details of your theism? What do you believe, regarding the supernatural and the esoteric, why do you believe such and what is your best evidence to support such?
If you don't want to discuss the details of your theism the all that is left, is the spectacle of reading your word and concept contortions, as you continue to skirt around the issue, using well worn philosophical shiney's

Humans are significant, yes and they are much more important than money, or property or the personal ego and demands of those who insist that they are superior,
— universeness

Why? — Hanover

Again, another shiney!! You only ask why, to the content of my above quote to be obtuse.
Do you value your children more that your money, your property, your material possessions or your ego?
Your children are humans, yes? Would you accept any other humans claim that your children are inferior because they are not, say, moslems? If you do feel that way about your children, do you not extent that to the children of other humans and other humans themselves? Do you need conformation from your god, that you are being moral, if you value your children in this way or can the conformation of secular humanists such as myself, replace any need you have for supernatural conformation (which you will never receive anyway!)?

Capitalism seems to work, but I don't know that I'd call it intrinsically cooperative. This just seems your idiosyncratic view of morality — Hanover

Yeah, especially for the nefarious elite! and those who wish to become one of them. Capitalism certainly does not work, at all, for the vast majority of the currently over 8 billion stakeholders on this planet.

Maybe you should put that rather naive statement to those who work with such offenders every day.
— universeness
They cooperate with rapists so the rapists can get their lot of raping in and the non-rapists can get a little of what they want? I thought we locked rapists up without concern for their wishes. — Hanover

Sorry but some of your responses are just absolutely absurd and perhaps even sinister.

No. The point here is to learn to not make assumptions when people make statements about their beliefs. — Noble Dust

Fine, and the counter point is be as crystal clear and honest when you make statements about your beliefs of you will be misinterpreted, which is YOUR fault if you are unable to explain you belief sufficiently, to the average, reasonable, lay person.
As Einstein stated: “If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”

I didn't say that bad government excuses bad religion. — Noble Dust

You did offer both with the implication of comparison.

It's like saying the existence of 'rape and torture' are more tolerable because murder exists. I assume you are familiar with '2 wrongs don't make a right.'
— universeness

No it's not. You are indeed putting words in my mouth. — Noble Dust

It seems that you and @Paine have different opinions on exactly what words I am 'putting in your mouth.'

:up: :clap:

If I declare moral realism, where is this moral realm?
— Hanover

Buggered if I know. — Tom Storm

Well, the 'moral realm' (I prefer 'moral landscape' as 'realm' can invoke images of monarchy,) certainly exists in human aspiration and legacy and is at its most useful imo, when it acts as a guide towards tasking/compelling, personal aspiration, to be benevolent towards other humans, other lifeforms, and the environments/ecology they each depend on.

Keep probing sir!
Keep asking the type of questions you are asking.

That they are the same? I've never looked into this nor have I ever been compelled to wonder. There may or may not be some truth there, I don't really know. — Watchmaker

Yes they are the same BUT are you not then compelled to find out more about what is known regarding the origin story of Yahweh? If that is the god you actually assign as YOUR creator and YOUR leader and that which YOU are willing to invest something as potentially all consuming and very powerful as WORSHIP. Should you not be able to explain, why Yahweh went from a minor Mesopotamian/Levant deity, to become the main monotheistic, Abrahamic, god of the Christians, YOUR chosen god! Why was his wife/consort/sacred feminine, Asherah dropped by Christianity? For example.
Do you know about Adams first wife, Lilith? Made by Jehovah, from the same clay/mud that Adam was?

I know the story of Lilith from a Neil Gaiman comic book actually. Adam rejected her because he witnessed all her innards coming together and was grossed out by it.

Thanks for the info. I really don't have a response at the moment. I'll consult with a few wise men I know on the matter and get back with you.