Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

[davidm]

Determinism doe not entail necessity. This is a modal fallacy.

It does not impact the is-ought problem either way. There is a "bare" is, for any kind of Materialist, by definition.

... or without any causal explanation we can presently detect (as in the case of the naive interpretations of Quantum Theory, for example), and so "just happen."

Unless you go for the Many Worlds interpretation of QM, then the alternative interpretations are not naive.

I didn't say there were no non-naive interpretations of QM. I did say that the naive version posits no causal chain. I just don't think any sensible person can believe that version of QM.

Well you're wrong. There is no causal chain in QM (no local hidden variables). This has been experimentally demonstrated.

To get around this you can posit Many Worlds (which I actually subscribe to) but if you do that, it comes with the baggage that every possible outcome of anything that happens, provided that its quantum probability is non-zero, actually happens. So there really is a world in which Hitler won World War II. Not sure how MW fits with telos, but there you go. Maybe God is fond of endless variety?

[davidm]

To say that you "ought" to do something, therefore, is to say that it's in your best interests to do it, so as to be a fully actualized and happy individual.

But of course one can say the same thing on the assumption of naturalism: "Listen, you ought not to kill that person, because you might end up in prison; also, a world in which people routinely kill one another is bound to be unpleasant, and someday you might end up being not the killer, but the killed, which would be unpleasant for you."

But none of this addresses whether there is a logical justification for deriving an "ought" conclusion from purely "is" premises -- and that is the crux of the guillotine, contaminating theism as much as atheism.

[Londoner]

Check again...I didn't ask that.

I asked for one. Just one. Any one. And there's none.

What you asked was:

Just give me one moral precept that an Atheist, because of his Atheism, must follow. Give me anything -- murder, rape, slavery (the easy cases of "wrong," I would think) all the way down to lying, cheating and stealing (perhaps a little harder to show).

It is oddly phrased, since nobody (atheist or theist) must follow a moral precept. And if you literally want a moral precept that an atheist might follow would be; 'Do not murder/rape, enslave etc.'

So I assumed you meant 'what basis could an atheist have for adopting those moral precepts?'. If not, then my answer is above!

Me: To put it that way relates to religion in that it resembles a set of commandments; 'Thou shalt not...' But the atheist might consider that the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' is not contained in the acts but in the mind of the actor.

The problem with that supposition is that then there's simply no such thing. For a thing that is only "contained in the mind of the actor" is a nice synonym for "delusion" or "hallucination."

So would you call a belief in God a "delusion" or "hallucination" ? Because a belief is something that only exists in a mind. And 'good' is not a physical substance either, so if we take the view that it must therefore be a "delusion" or "hallucination" that is the end of the discussion!

If reality itself does not demand more, at the very minimum, somebody else has to share that perception "contained within the mind", and agree with it. But how should any person agree with what is merely "contained in the mind" of a particular actor, not actualized or generalizable or compulsory by reality itself? There's no reason he should. Worse, there's no probability he even can do that.

So no, it can't be merely "contained in the mind of the actor." It must be accessible to "actors," and hence some common basis must be adduced for it in reality itself.

Nothing in one person's consciousness is accessible to anyone else. Nobody can share my perceptions, they can only have their own perceptions. Others might have a similar perception of 'reality' to me, but nobody thinks reality includes an object; 'good'.

To say something is morally "right," but is only so for one person (because "contained in his mind"), is essentially a contradiction, therefore.

Do you think of 'good' or 'right' as a thing, literally 'contained' in a mind? Or as a physical substance, that has dimensions, mass etc.? If not, then such language is simply misleading.

The more usual view is that 'good' is a judgement we make, and we can either make it of either the motivations of the actor or the deed itself. Both ideas are found within theism.

Not quite. You've forgotten free will. God has created us to be one thing, and we choose to be another. It is not for what we "are" that we are culpable: nobody can help what they "are." It is because of what we choose to do, and what we choose to be, that we are culpable...The Bible says plainly, absolutely not. Titus 3:5, Eph. 2:8-9, for a start...Not "already." Remember free will? We have a choice to make....The error here is to think of "human nature" as necessarily being antithetical to God. In Christian theology, human nature is not the problem -- fallen human nature is the problem. That's a very important distinction. There's nothing inherently bad in being human...but there is in the kind of human beings we have become, and in the things we have set ourselves to seek and do....In Christianity, all things have a right "telos", or end, outcome. The human race is simply not aiming at their true telos right now. That's what "fallen" essentially entails. The Christian word "sin" means "falling short," or "missing the mark" as in archery: i.e. not reaching that for which one was designed and intended, not attaining one's true goal or blessedness.

Now you are just giving your own interpretation of religion and it is your own interpretation of one particular religion. But the question you posed was not about what you believe but about whether only theism could supply the basis for moral precepts. It is a fact that other people who also consider themselves theists think differently to you. If religion is supposed to provide clear guidance, then all religious people should agree with you - that they don't agree with you is a sign that it doesn't.

I can't defend all Theists, because all Theists are not believers in the same things about God, or even in the same God. The Muslim God is not mine. Nor is the Hindu "god" conception. The Inquisition is a Catholic apologetic problem, but I'm not a Catholic. I'll have to let them defend their understanding of God, if they can.

Indeed. So by insisting on your own interpretation you are not supporting the original argument implied by your question, that only theism can support moral precepts. You are arguing that your own personal religious beliefs can do that.

[Dubious]

And I'll give you an easy one: explain to me, given an Atheist-Materialist worldview, why rape and/or slavery are actually wrong. But do Atheists run around raping and enslaving people? If they don't but they can't explain rational grounds for why they can't, then I think we have a pretty clear case, don't you?

What you make very clear is that without the insertion of god in your argument there is no rationality in being either good or evil. So the only way to make it rational per your argument as a theist is to commit to God having commanded it. If you exclude the god part theists would have to "devolve" to atheists since then they too wouldn't be able to explain rationally why any action is right or wrong.

In effect proclaiming "rationally" on good and evil - which as a theist you are evidently qualified to do - requires the irrational intervention of your biblical god denoting it's own rules and the ONLY thing you need to understand about those is to know that god commands it!! Notice the circularity and the paradox. It's as if God had spoken as Caesar when he said, the cause is in my will, to quote Shakespeare. Translated for all 21st century meathead mentalities that means if you don't like it, screw off and be damned!

It seems Atheists got the shit-end of the stick being forced to rationalize from the bottom-up instead of voluntarily receiving their allotment of revelations from the top-down. Stupid atheists.. OR it could have been some unknown god - not the idiot one in the OT or the pathetic one in the NT - that decided to make life interesting by intentionally inventing atheists!

[Londoner]

And I'll give you an easy one: explain to me, given an Atheist-Materialist worldview, why rape and/or slavery are actually wrong. But do Atheists run around raping and enslaving people? If they don't but they can't explain rational grounds for why they can't, then I think we have a pretty clear case, don't you?

Their grounds for not raping and enslaving people might be because they do not think raping and enslaving people will make them happy. They might take the view that the sort of emotions that might drive us to behave that sort of way are short-lived, and can never truly be satisfied, so that if we go down that path we ultimately harm ourselves, we cut ourselves off from the possibility of true contentment.

I think I can give rational-materialistic grounds why it is a bad idea to take up using crack cocaine. The argument is very similar.

[Arising_uk]

And I'll give you an easy one: explain to me, given an Atheist-Materialist worldview, why rape and/or slavery are actually wrong. But do Atheists run around raping and enslaving people? If they don't but they can't explain rational grounds for why they can't, ...

Simple really, because they don't want to be raped or enslaved themselves nor do they wish this for their siblings, parents, children or friends. Can't get more rational than this.

Here's one for IC, why did Christians own slaves? Was it because their 'God' does not actually say it is wrong to do so.

[Walker]

And I'll give you an easy one: explain to me, given an Atheist-Materialist worldview, why rape and/or slavery are actually wrong. But do Atheists run around raping and enslaving people? If they don't but they can't explain rational grounds for why they can't, then I think we have a pretty clear case, don't you?

Their grounds for not raping and enslaving people might be because they do not think raping and enslaving people will make them happy. They might take the view that the sort of emotions that might drive us to behave that sort of way are short-lived, and can never truly be satisfied, so that if we go down that path we ultimately harm ourselves, we cut ourselves off from the possibility of true contentment.

I think I can give rational-materialistic grounds why it is a bad idea to take up using crack cocaine. The argument is very similar.

Crime and Punishment is a fictionally true story about a man who thinks himself superior, and thus above the natural laws that govern mankind. He becomes his own inquisitor, and the antagonist detective becomes the physical form of Raskolnikov’s thoughts. Sort of same tale as Poe’s Tell-Tale Heart.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

Just give me one moral precept that an Atheist, because of his Atheism, must follow. Give me anything -- murder, rape, slavery (the easy cases of "wrong," I would think) all the way down to lying, cheating and stealing (perhaps a little harder to show).

Modern 'atheism' is a product of scientific enlightenment.

Now that scientific enlightenment is not only a fait accompli but also is accepted even by for instance the Vatican we men now have moved on to the next stage of adulthood after enlightenment. The next stage of adulthood which is built upon university-educated scientific enlightenment and also upon the learned responses of the newly urbanised poor is care for fellow men. We see the urban poor founding various mutual aid associations. Mutual aid is the visible evidence of fellow feeling which together with the scientific ability of the university-educated class forms the moral background of the ethics which disallow rape, murder, lying,cheating , and stealing.

God's intentions have little if anything to do with human advances in morality. God's intentions are a poetic metaphor , a personalisation, of the best that men are capable of at any time and place.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, you know, this pretty much amounts to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, doesn't it?

Au contraire. That objection contains a very basic mistake about the NTSF.

Check it out. The NTSF is applicable only when a criterion that is not appropriate is being applied. See the following exceptions clause, straight from RationalWiki:

"Noteworthy is that the fallacy does not occur if there is a clear and well understood definition of what membership in a group requires, and it is that definition which is broken (e.g., "no honest man would lie" or "no theist can be an atheist" and so on). Thus, the NTS fallacy only occurs if the group is later redefined for no valid reason."

So when one says "No true Scotsman wears trousers," it's a fallacy, because kilts are no necessary criterion for being a Scotsman. But if one says, "No true Scotsman lacks Scots heritage," then one is not guilty of a fallacy, but rather has stated a definitional or criterial truth: no Scotsmen ARE without Scots heritage, by nature of the idea of a Scotsman.

Now, can a person be a Christian when one's actions are contrary to the explicit teachings of Christ? Christ Himself said no. His apostles said no. I'll warrant that the general consensus of Christians says no. But you think yes?

I think I'll go with Christ on that one.

As to the teachings of Christ as depicted in the NT (though there is some dispute on what he really meant in a number of instances), I pretty much in my own life adhere to them. What does that make me? A Christian atheist? Is that OK? Or am I going into the lake of fire regardless?

I am not your judge. But if you do what Christ commanded you, then one of the things you do is believe in Him (see John 6:40). If you've done that, then on the authority of Christ Himself, you can be certain you have eternal life. If you have not, you can be certain of your present situation (John 3:36). But no morality that a human being can manufacture by himself is sufficient to merit eternal life, says the Bible. And if one believes otherwise, then even if he calls himself a "Christian" and wears a smile, a cassock or a mitre, you can be absolutely certain he is not what he thinks he is.

But not because I say so. Because the Word of God says so.

[Immanuel Can]

I just don't think any sensible person can believe that version of QM.

Well you're wrong. There is no causal chain in QM (no local hidden variables). This has been experimentally demonstrated.

You're not reading me carefully there. I guess I can't explain it to you. Or, I suppose, maybe you see yourself as a proponent of the naive version of QM, because now it seems you're trying to defend it for some reason. Either way, I can't seem to make the point clear. So I'll leave that.

[Immanuel Can]

To say that you "ought" to do something, therefore, is to say that it's in your best interests to do it, so as to be a fully actualized and happy individual.

But of course one can say the same thing on the assumption of naturalism: "Listen, you ought not to kill that person, because you might end up in prison; also, a world in which people routinely kill one another is bound to be unpleasant, and someday you might end up being not the killer, but the killed, which would be unpleasant for you."

No, that's not an intrinsic good, and hence not related to your telos. That's an extrinsic punishment, which is merely contingent. In different social circumstances, what you describe might not happen at all.

Telos is inevitable. Either you are, or you are not, what you should have been, at the end of the day.

Think of it by analogy, maybe. If we say the telos of a hammer is to pound nails, it would be because it is the type of hammer designed by its creators to be ideal for that function. Of course, you could use the same hammer NOT to actualize it's original telos: you could use it to crack nuts or fix watches. But it would never be fulfilling the function the Creator designed for the hammer, in that case. And it would never be as good at that as it would at pounding nails.

Now in hammers, nothing's at stake. You can use a hammer for anything. But we're not hammers, and our failure to achieve our own most important purpose is not merely inconvenient: for us, it's tragic. To achieve your telos is to become the very best "you" you can be. To fall short of your telos is, then, to have failed to become the very thing for which you were created, and in which your fullest happiness consists. Whatever other purposes one may then actualize are no better than second best, and perhaps considerably less than that, by definition of what one is, or was created to be.

[Immanuel Can]

Check again...I didn't ask that.

I asked for one. Just one. Any one. And there's none.

What you asked was:

Just give me one moral precept that an Atheist, because of his Atheism, must follow. Give me anything -- murder, rape, slavery (the easy cases of "wrong," I would think) all the way down to lying, cheating and stealing (perhaps a little harder to show).

It is oddly phrased, since nobody (atheist or theist) must follow a moral precept. And if you literally want a moral precept that an atheist might follow would be; 'Do not murder/rape, enslave etc.'

No, I do mean "must." I don't mean the "must" of mechanical necessity, obviously, as in "all dropped objects must fall," say. I mean the must of moral obligation, as in "all good parents must love their children," for example.

So would you call a belief in God a "delusion" or "hallucination" ? Because a belief is something that only exists in a mind.

Belief qua mental state exists in the mind. The object of belief is not in the mind (though perhaps some extreme Idealists might say it is). So God is not "in the mind."

And 'good' is not a physical substance either, so if we take the view that it must therefore be a "delusion" or "hallucination" that is the end of the discussion!

No, because "delusions" and "hallucinations" are not ALL that exist in a mind. We also suppose that true beliefs can happen there. Reasoning can happen there. Certainly we know that approximations and estimates of truth can also exist there. Such are the basis of both science and logic.

If reality itself does not demand more, at the very minimum, somebody else has to share that perception "contained within the mind", and agree with it. But how should any person agree with what is merely "contained in the mind" of a particular actor, not actualized or generalizable or compulsory by reality itself? There's no reason he should. Worse, there's no probability he even can do that.

So no, it can't be merely "contained in the mind of the actor." It must be accessible to "actors," and hence some common basis must be adduced for it in reality itself.

Nothing in one person's consciousness is accessible to anyone else.

Not true. You and I can agree that the sum of 2+2 = 4. Now, you may conceptualize that a LITTLE differently from me (say, seeing it written in red, while I see it written in blue) but the substance of the calculation we agree on.

More complicatedly, we can agree on precepts, whether factual or moral. Again, you may have trivial differences, and yet substantively agree with me. The earth is a sphere. Fire burns. Murder is wrong. God exists...we can agree on these, even if your imagination renders them to you somewhat differently.

This is so routine as to be obvious. Without the possibility of shared understandings, people simply could not form communities of any kind. Each person's perceptions of things would be so utterly unique that no communication would be possible at all.

So let's keep the baby when we chuck the bathwater, no?

Do you think of 'good' or 'right' as a thing, literally 'contained' in a mind? Or as a physical substance, that has dimensions, mass etc.?

Neither. The only "mind" which "contains" good is God's. Good precedes and exceeds all other minds, and their possession of it is only an approximation of the grasp which the Divine Mind has on "good." It's grasp is definitive and complete: ours is only ever an attempt at the expression of that definitiveness and completeness, so far as we can know.

The more usual view is that 'good' is a judgement we make, and we can either make it of either the motivations of the actor or the deed itself. Both ideas are found within theism.

This is not the Christian view. It's a form of Idealism.

Not quite. You've forgotten free will. God has created us to be one thing, and we choose to be another. It is not for what we "are" that we are culpable: nobody can help what they "are." It is because of what we choose to do, and what we choose to be, that we are culpable...The Bible says plainly, absolutely not. Titus 3:5, Eph. 2:8-9, for a start...Not "already." Remember free will? We have a choice to make....The error here is to think of "human nature" as necessarily being antithetical to God. In Christian theology, human nature is not the problem -- fallen human nature is the problem. That's a very important distinction. There's nothing inherently bad in being human...but there is in the kind of human beings we have become, and in the things we have set ourselves to seek and do....In Christianity, all things have a right "telos", or end, outcome. The human race is simply not aiming at their true telos right now. That's what "fallen" essentially entails. The Christian word "sin" means "falling short," or "missing the mark" as in archery: i.e. not reaching that for which one was designed and intended, not attaining one's true goal or blessedness.

Now you are just giving your own interpretation of religion and it is your own interpretation of one particular religion.

No. I'm presenting the relevant data for your personal consideration. If you have reason to think my "interpretation" wrong, then you have every right to state why you think that. The text is open to both of us, which is why I supplied the relevant references.

What do you believe it means?

But the question you posed was not about what you believe but about whether only theism could supply the basis for moral precepts. It is a fact that other people who also consider themselves theists think differently to you.

Quite so. Were it otherwise, then "Theism" would be a religion in its own right. But it's not. It's a collective noun for very distinct beliefs, united in only one of their many features: belief in some kind of God or gods.

If religion is supposed to provide clear guidance, then all religious people should agree with you - that they don't agree with you is a sign that it doesn't.

"Religion" is another such collective noun. "Religion" doesn't believe anything in particular. It's also a plural noun, because manifestly, some religions are false. You can know that because of Aristotle's Law of Non-Contradiction. You don't need me to tell you that.

I can't defend all Theists, because all Theists are not believers in the same things about God, or even in the same God. The Muslim God is not mine. Nor is the Hindu "god" conception. The Inquisition is a Catholic apologetic problem, but I'm not a Catholic. I'll have to let them defend their understanding of God, if they can.

Indeed. So by insisting on your own interpretation you are not supporting the original argument implied by your question, that only theism can support moral precepts. You are arguing that your own personal religious beliefs can do that.

No. I'm am only saying that the most basic criteria for believing morality has any objectivity at all is Theism. I am not claiming that all Theisms have the right morality, for they have different views of what objective morality would be.

Christ said, "Love your enemies." Mohammed allegedly said, "Kill them." Only one of these can be moral, though both are articulated from Theistic viewpoints. As for which one is truly moral, I'll let you judge.

[Immanuel Can]

And I'll give you an easy one: explain to me, given an Atheist-Materialist worldview, why rape and/or slavery are actually wrong. But do Atheists run around raping and enslaving people? If they don't but they can't explain rational grounds for why they can't, then I think we have a pretty clear case, don't you?

What you make very clear is that without the insertion of god in your argument there is no rationality in being either good or evil.

Yes, I would hope so. It certainly seems clear to me.

So the only way to make it rational per your argument as a theist is to commit to God having commanded it. If you exclude the god part theists would have to "devolve" to atheists since then they too wouldn't be able to explain rationally why any action is right or wrong.

Well, Atheists can't. They have no rational explanation for why actions are right or wrong. So it wouldn't do Theists any good to "devolve" to Atheism. As the Atheists here themselves adamantly insist, Atheism has no moral premises to offer.

In effect proclaiming "rationally" on good and evil - which as a theist you are evidently qualified to do - requires the irrational intervention of your biblical god denoting it's own rules and the ONLY thing you need to understand about those is to know that god commands it!!

The naive version of the Divine Command Theory is not the only Theistic ethical system. That DCT is mere legalism. It may reflect some religious ideas, but it is far from comprehensive, and certainly not an adequate characterization of a Christian ethic.

"By the deeds of the Law, no [person] will be justified in [God's] sight," says the Bible. So your version of DCT is not what it has in mind.

[Immanuel Can]

Their grounds for not raping and enslaving people might be because they do not think raping and enslaving people will make them happy.

From whence do you derive the fundamental precept, "We should make other people happy"?

If I'm an 18th Century Southerner, then it makes me very happy to have slaves. On what basis do you say I should care how they feel? It works for me! Heck, to me, they're not even "people." Slaves are like mules (which is why Southerners coined the term "mulatto," actually). Why must I make my "mules" happy? And why must I do so, if freeing them makes ME unhappy?

You've got some showing to do there, if I'm a Southern slave-owner. First, you've got to show who counts as "people," and secondly, even after that, you've got to show that I owe these "people" to do that which makes them happy, even when it messes with me.

They might take the view that the sort of emotions that might drive us to behave that sort of way are short-lived, and can never truly be satisfied, so that if we go down that path we ultimately harm ourselves, we cut ourselves off from the possibility of true contentment.

But how many people prefer "short-lived" happinesses to long-term ones? If everybody thought long-term happiness was better than short, then the credit card companies would go bankrupt. But as you can see, they do booming business. So that might be a hard sell.

I think I can give rational-materialistic grounds why it is a bad idea to take up using crack cocaine. The argument is very similar.

"It is a bad idea..." is not a moral argument, but a pragmatic one. It means only, "This might not work out well for you, assuming you're not the self-destructive type (but if you are, it will, and there won't be anything wrong with it really)." That's too weak a basis for morality. And crack cocaine decidedly does deliver some of that short-term euphoria that people love. If it didn't, it would not be the problem that it is. So it meets the "happiness" test, at least in the short term.

So now we need a basis for a moral precept saying, "Short-term happiness is not to be valued above long-term." That will be a very tough sell, in some quarters.

[Londoner]

No, I do mean "must." I don't mean the "must" of mechanical necessity, obviously, as in "all dropped objects must fall," say. I mean the must of moral obligation, as in "all good parents must love their children," for example.

An atheist can also use the word 'must' to mean moral obligation. Anyone can. (The question I assumed you were asking was whether they have any less or more grounds for doing so than a theist. But if that was not your intention, then you have your answer.)

No. I'm am only saying that the most basic criteria for believing morality has any objectivity at all is Theism. I am not claiming that all Theisms have the right morality, for they have different views of what objective morality would be.

If theists can have 'different views', then their view of morality cannot be objective. An objective fact would be one everyone considers true, because it is verifiable.

So when you say theism can supply a base, you are only referring to your own personal beliefs. And if you feel your own personal beliefs are objective, this must be because you believe they are based on some objective external fact, not just 'they make sense to me'.

Belief qua mental state exists in the mind. The object of belief is not in the mind (though perhaps some extreme Idealists might say it is). So God is not "in the mind."....No, because "delusions" and "hallucinations" are not ALL that exist in a mind. We also suppose that true beliefs can happen there. Reasoning can happen there. Certainly we know that approximations and estimates of truth can also exist there. Such are the basis of both science and logic.

What aspect of God is outside the mind? As I asked before, if God was the sort of thing dealt with by science, the sort of thing we describe as an objective fact, then he must have physical properties, like extension, location and so on.

If you and the other theists disagree about God (as you do), but your beliefs are based on objective fact, then you ought to be able to point to a piece of scientific evidence that will compel them to agree that you are right and they are wrong.

So no, it can't be merely "contained in the mind of the actor." It must be accessible to "actors," and hence some common basis must be adduced for it in reality itself.

If it is a metaphysical belief then it is contained only in the mind. We can tell this because it is possible to hold many contradictory metaphysical beliefs, for example I can believe that the world is an illusion and somebody else can believe it was created by God. The physical object, the world, is identical in both cases. We cannot prove which of us is correct by science (or logic).

Not true. You and I can agree that the sum of 2+2 = 4. Now, you may conceptualize that a LITTLE differently from me (say, seeing it written in red, while I see it written in blue) but the substance of the calculation we agree on.

Maths has no substance. 2+2=4 does not tell us 'there are 4 apples' or 'four Gods'.

More complicatedly, we can agree on precepts, whether factual or moral. Again, you may have trivial differences, and yet substantively agree with me. The earth is a sphere. Fire burns. Murder is wrong. God exists...we can agree on these, even if your imagination renders them to you somewhat differently.

This is so routine as to be obvious. Without the possibility of shared understandings, people simply could not form communities of any kind. Each person's perceptions of things would be so utterly unique that no communication would be possible at all.

So let's keep the baby when we chuck the bathwater, no?

But you do not agree. You do not agree with atheists, you do not agree with most theists. There might appear to be communication in that you and other people both use the word 'good' but you mean different things by it, as this discussion proves. Most obviously, you think it refers to some objective fact, but most people do not agree there is such a fact.

Me: Do you think of 'good' or 'right' as a thing, literally 'contained' in a mind? Or as a physical substance, that has dimensions, mass etc.?

Neither.

Then God cannot be an 'objective fact'.

The only "mind" which "contains" good is God's. Good precedes and exceeds all other minds, and their possession of it is only an approximation of the grasp which the Divine Mind has on "good." It's grasp is definitive and complete: ours is only ever an attempt at the expression of that definitiveness and completeness, so far as we can know....This is not the Christian view. It's a form of Idealism.....Not quite. You've forgotten free will. God has created us to be one thing, and we choose to be another. It is not for what we "are" that we are culpable: nobody can help what they "are." It is because of what we choose to do, and what we choose to be, that we are culpable...The Bible says plainly, absolutely not. Titus 3:5, Eph. 2:8-9, for a start...Not "already." Remember free will? We have a choice to make....The error here is to think of "human nature" as necessarily being antithetical to God. In Christian theology, human nature is not the problem -- fallen human nature is the problem. That's a very important distinction. There's nothing inherently bad in being human...but there is in the kind of human beings we have become, and in the things we have set ourselves to seek and do....In Christianity, all things have a right "telos", or end, outcome. The human race is simply not aiming at their true telos right now. That's what "fallen" essentially entails. The Christian word "sin" means "falling short," or "missing the mark" as in archery: i.e. not reaching that for which one was designed and intended, not attaining one's true goal or blessedness....

I'm presenting the relevant data for your personal consideration. If you have reason to think my "interpretation" wrong, then you have every right to state why you think that. The text is open to both of us, which is why I supplied the relevant references.

What I have reason to think is that your "interpretation" is not data, not objective fact. How do you know what the mind of God is like? How do you know the Bible is reliable? Remember, most theists would disagree with you, as would all atheists. First, you need to prove - as an objective fact - that God exists, before you get on to all the theology.

Remember the point we are discussing; the claim that only Theism provides a basic criteria for believing morality has any objectivity at all. We have already established we do not mean theism generally, only a specific form of theism.

Now I am asking where this objectivity is obtained. First, what is this objective basis for the specific form of theism you approve of, such that you can demonstrate from fact that you are right and others are wrong? And (as others have asked) how would we get from that fact to a moral 'ought'?

Isn't it the case that you must be using the term 'objective' is a peculiar way?