Haven’t those who reject morality just because of its religious roots ended up constructing another belief system

[Immanuel Can]

That's part of the problem, not the solution. If we all have different moral "biases," how are we to prove to anybody else that what we think is right is right, when they don't "have a bias" for the same conclusion? We need to be able to answer the "why" question with a rational "because."

I consider it the origin.
If no one had bias, there's no reason to suspect morality to emerge.

That isn't how it works. The fact that I may have a "bias" doesn't put any duty, obligation or even a basic reason upon you to adopt the same "bias." Morality requires agreement about what is right and wrong. "Biases" do not entail any agreement; in fact, if something is a "bias" the implication is that nobody has any duty to agree at all.

"Bias" is most often unfair, unwarranted and arbitrary, in fact. For example, if somebody says, "This referee is biased," it does not mean the referee is moral. It means he's unfairly tilting the scales of justice in favour of one side or the other, when really, he should be impartial. Likewise, if we call morality just a "bias," we're in danger of implying there can be no fairness or justice in holding that position.

The rational "because", would be if we could make the case for why their current behaviour is not in their best interest, and why an alternate approach is better suited to them.

"Best interest" and "better suited" are in the eye of the beholder. The Islamist thinks his "best interest" is to beat his wives into submission, and to own as many slaves as he finds it useful to have. How are you and I going to convince him those things are not in his "best interest," when he thinks they are, and can give you plenty of reason why he thinks it?

[Skepdick]

It depends. Whatever ontology you propose has to be capable of justifying its own moral precepts.

So you presuppose moral percepts; and then you propose an ontology to justify them? That seems circular don't you think?

Given everything that exists ontologically is morality one of those things; or not?

If it cannot, then it has no ability to justify morality at all, even if that ontology were true.

So secularism leaves us in the following position: if false, secularism is incapable of telling us anything about whatever morality there might be; and if true, all it can lead us to conclude is that there is no truth to morality at all.

You seem rather confused. Does morality exist ontologically; or not?

Surely you can propose an ontology in which it exists; and an ontology in which it doesn't exist.

Either way, secularism cannot ground or justify a single moral precept of any kind...and that remains the case, whether secularism itself is true or false.

You really don't seem to have a grasp on this...

I propose a secular ontology in which abortion is not wrong.
And you propose a non-secular ontology in which abortion is not wrong.

Which ontology is the true ontology?

...for secularists. You forgot that bit.

Then you are a secularist.

If ontology justifies morality; then morality isn't part of the ontology which justifies it.

But if secularism is true, then yes, morality simply does not exist...it's a fake, an imagining, that at best can only serve as a cover for raw "power," just as Nietzsche said.

Which is no different to the view you are peddling.

Why would a morality proposed to ontologically require justification? Does an ontology require justification?

And then?

And then, if we all lived like secularists, we'd be amoral, and society would shatter. Good thing for us that among their other charms, secularism has the charm of hypocrisy; nobody who believes it ever lives as if they did, except for a few true psychopaths and sociopaths. So society can continue, so long as secularists continue to be hypocrites and live by a morality their own worldview has to tell them is bunk.

Facts don't care what you value. Facts are facts. They don't relent. You can value them, or you can ignore them: they'll still win, every time.

Facts don't win; or lose. They are just facts.

I'm waiting for you to tell me one moral precept or ethical axiom that secularism makes necesssary.

And I am waiting for one moral percept or ethical axiom that is ontologically necessary.

That is - it exists; whether you propose it or not.

Since you can't, you should know I'm right about that. If you don't, you can test it: just come up with one such precept.

"Good luck, Jim."

You need all the luck in the universe, Jim.

You are stuck in a circle.

[Ben JS]

That isn't how it works. The fact that I may have a "bias" doesn't put any duty, obligation or even a basic reason upon you to adopt the same "bias."

Bias is a prerequisite for morality to develop,
as good / bad are value judgements rooted in said bias.
Beyond the bias of sentient beings, all is neutral.
Value is not an inherent aspect of existence,
it's something projected onto aspects of existence by bias entities.

That bias does not necessarily lead to morality is true.
As a bar not necessarily leading to a bar fight is true.
But in order for the bar fight to occur, the bar must first be.
In order for morality to develop, their must be biased agents.

In a world of no value, no objectives - morality has no function.

You're confusing my statement, probably intentionally - which is par the course as I've seen.

I am not claiming all bias leads to morality.
I'm saying morality emerges from bias.

So yes, IC. It is how it works.
You're wrong again.

-

Hey, IC,
do you assert the secular can't have morality?
As that's the primary claim I'm disputing.
You kind of just made the blanket statement,
then changed the topic.

It's kind of you like you have no interest in truth,
and only seek smear any idea you disagree with -
making blanket incorrect statements,
and when called out,
moving on to making different blanket statements,
without even skipping a beat.

Were you wrong about secular people's capacity to have morality?
That morality to the secular is actually indeed something?

Did you even skip a beat? Did you even engage in self reflection?

Or are the standards you hold yourself to indifferent to spreading untruths as undisputed fact?

The Islamist thinks his "best interest" is to beat his wives into submission, and to own as many slaves as he finds it useful to have.

What one thinks is their best interest, isn't necessarily so.
To influence them, one would be expected to make the case why their current acts do not suit their best interest.

Before one an Islamist, Christian or Buddhist - they are a person.
People's interests really aren't so different,
generally what's different is their beliefs regarding how to best attain their ideals.

My incentive to communicate is not to make a case against any religion, at this present moment.
I am here to explain the position and credibility of the secular person's capacity to build / adopt a sound moral system founded without appeal to the supernatural.

I've explained how this is possible, and you skipped right past.

How are you and I going to convince him those things are not in his "best interest," when he thinks they are, and can give you plenty of reason why he thinks it?

I would say something akin to what I'd say to the Christian who wants to lock a person in a cage for years for flushing out unconscious cells from their body.
Up to date with laws regarding abortion in the US these days?
But I'm not doing your work for you, IC.

I'll criticize religion another day -
I'm here to push against your claims regarding secularists and their morality.

===

Oh, one can imagine, invent, indoctrinate, or even impose by force a code that has no moral justification at all.

Secular morality can be founded and rooted within the needs of people.
As soon as a person agrees that what they want is their health,
then we can establish what is conducive to health and their self-interest.

Without a goal/objective, all is neutral.
We are born biased, due to natural selection.
Our structure produces bias.

Morality does not need to some divine justification, simply 'I prefer this.'
It can function in light of the recognition that it's basis are preferences that resulted in survival - and nothing more.
We don't need a sky daddy to figure out how to build mutually beneficial relationships with others.

Morality is all about a code of interaction with others.
As if there were no others, you wouldn't need to justify anything.
You'd do what you want, and you'd need no defense.

But that's just back to Nietzsche: behind all morality is nothing but "the will to power," then.

I understand will to power to be from a place of abundance, not lack.
The will to power, is not to gain power.
It is the will to express the power one already has.
We are like a spring, that wants release.

To express our capacity, is fulfilling to us.

Secular morality does not need to rest on anything to do with will to power.

Will to power is but one objective.
We can set any objective,
and find others who agree to this objective.
Then between us,
we can evaluate what are more/less effective acts to reach this objective.

Good/Preferred = effective acts at reaching objective.
Bad/Non-preferred = less effective / counter productive acts to reaching objective.

All value assessments are relative to a goal/objective.
'Common sense' morality rests on fairly universally held, sometimes unspoken, goals.
When you break them down, these underlying goals are revealed.

Where do these goals emerge?
From our bias.
Having certain biases in our actions increased our evolutionary fitness.

Being shaped to be effective at survival,
or at least moreso than competing beings that would threaten our survival.

You don't have to listen to 'God'.
Nothing 'God' declares regarding morality is necessary to abide by.

According to your god, you have free will.
You can choose to do whatever you like.

Need is relative to a goal - you don't need to do anything, even if you're religious.
If one is prepared to face the consequences, one can freely disobey.

We don't need to eat or drink water - if we're prepared to starve, become dehydrated and die.
We don't need to listen to the 'will of God', if we're prepared to face whatever outcome that leads to.

There's ample evidence of religious people acting against their religious principles.
They'll then either say their soul is damned, or try to make amends / seek forgiveness.

In a world of free will,
there is no necessary act or behaviour.

We're all here in the mud and mire together.

Psychological egoism is the view that humans are always motivated by self-interest and selfishness, even in what seem to be acts of altruism. It claims that, when people choose to help others, they do so ultimately because of the personal benefits that they themselves expect to obtain, directly or indirectly, from doing so.

This is a descriptive rather than normative view, since it only makes claims about how things are, not how they "ought to be" according to some.

Our choice to listen or not listen to a religious morality,
is on the same footing as a choice to listen to a secular morality.
Each is rooted in our own being -
since it is us who makes the decision what listen to,
what to abide by, how to act, what we value/prefer.
At the core, we're always listening to ourselves.
This is our structure.

One can easily say,
'Yeah, I believe in God. Screw that bastard, though. I'm going to do X instead.'

All morality is a choice.

However, we're all living beings.
We have plenty in common,
our preferences are often aligned.
And plenty of acts that can be mutually rewarding to these preferences.

Here's one:
Society doesn't respect any system of ethics that entails seeking the death of all it's adherents.
Thus, intentionally causing the death of others is pretty universally treated as wrong - with few exceptions.
This behaviour is considered 'unhealthy'.
Why?
One of the primary things we have in common,
is our adaption for survival.
Seeking the death of all, completely runs against that -
which explains why it's so universally criticized.

The only difference between Judeo-Christian ethics,
and secular ethics - is the source of the yardstick.
The religious use the 'word of God' as the ultimate yardstick,
whilst typically the yardstick of the secular is rooted within themselves.

But it's all still a choice.
Still a person, looking within,
and asking what they want to do.
This is the foundation -
a person's preference.

==
==

And secularism renders morality a "nothing."

Not at all.
We are born with preferences/bias.
We develop our own purpose,
through these preferences/bias.

We can evaluate the world through these preferences.

One of the things we typically have is compassion / empathy.
It developed for a very self serving reason, but it is present nonetheless.
From this, we can be motivated to build a morality and act in a moral way.

Even in the absence of compassion / empathy,
we can recognize the utility of acting in accord with societal ethics.
Not because it is thought to be a fundamental truth of existence,
but because we decide it is in our interest to do so.

When we have common goals,
we can develop agreed upon norms.
Differentiate between that which supports or hinders our goals.
Evaluate and apply values to things, relative to their affect on our goal realization.

This is not nothing.
It is a tool that provides utility.
A very fulfilling one -
fulfillment being a typically rewarding/preferred experience.

it's a fake, an imagining, that at best can only serve as a cover for raw "power," just as Nietzsche said.

Morality is a construct.
A useful construct.
It is not fake.

Language is a construct.
A useful construct.
It is not fake.

Neither morality nor language are an inherent aspect of reality.
Each are constructed and their meanings created,
as a means to express the will of the one utilizing them.

Will to Power is but one goal a person could adopt and build morality / system of ethics / code of conduct around.
We have a will, regardless of whether that entails the acquisition of power.
We have preferences.
Perhaps one's primary goal could be alleviating the suffering of others.
In secular morality, this is perfectly sound and reasonable.
No self contradiction, and not fake.

[Ben JS]

If I was going to be lazy and not do my own thinking,
I wouldn't write the above, I'd instead paste this:

Yes, secular people can absolutely have morality independent of anything supernatural. Morality doesn't necessarily require a belief in the supernatural or a religious framework. Many secular moral systems are based on reason, empathy, and a shared understanding of human well-being.

For example:

Humanism: Secular humanism is a philosophy that emphasizes human values, ethics, and the importance of human welfare without relying on the supernatural. It advocates for principles such as compassion, fairness, and justice, all grounded in human experience and rational thought.

Utilitarianism: This ethical theory suggests that the best action is the one that maximizes overall happiness or well-being. It's based on empirical and rational reasoning about what tends to lead to positive outcomes, rather than on religious teachings.

Virtue Ethics: Focused on the development of good character traits (virtues), such as kindness, courage, and honesty, secular virtue ethics emphasizes the importance of cultivating these traits through personal development and societal norms, rather than divine command.

Social Contract Theory: Philosophers like Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau proposed that morality arises from agreements or contracts between individuals for mutual benefit, based on reason and the need for social order, not religion.

In essence, secular people can ground their morals in principles like empathy, the desire to avoid harm, fairness, and the well-being of others, without needing a supernatural source for these values. Morality, in this view, can emerge from human relationships, experience, and the logical consequences of actions within a social context.

[CIN2]

Value is not an inherent aspect of existence,
it's something projected onto aspects of existence by bias entities.

Not always. Like IC, you are overlooking ethical naturalism.

You guys need to update your reading. "Beginning in the 1980s, however, metaethicists began developing new ways of articulating and defending moral naturalism. It is now one of the most popular views in metaethics, perhaps the most popular." (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natu ... enQuesArgu)

[Skepdick]

I'm saying morality emerges from bias.

Immorality also emerges from bias.

When all is said and done - you've said just as much worthless stuff as IC.

What people want is an authoritative classifier such that the moral/good/true can be discerned from the immoral/bad/false.

And yes; in an operational sense the true/false dichotomy is a moral dichotomy. That's why philosophical enterprises operate on the basis of Truth; not Falsehood.

There's no philosophical enterprise which values Falsehood more than Truth.

[CIN2]

If I was going to be lazy and not do my own thinking,
I wouldn't write the above, I'd instead paste this:

Yes, secular people can absolutely have morality independent of anything supernatural. Morality doesn't necessarily require a belief in the supernatural or a religious framework. Many secular moral systems are based on reason, empathy, and a shared understanding of human well-being.

For example:

Humanism: Secular humanism is a philosophy that emphasizes human values, ethics, and the importance of human welfare without relying on the supernatural. It advocates for principles such as compassion, fairness, and justice, all grounded in human experience and rational thought.

Utilitarianism: This ethical theory suggests that the best action is the one that maximizes overall happiness or well-being. It's based on empirical and rational reasoning about what tends to lead to positive outcomes, rather than on religious teachings.

Virtue Ethics: Focused on the development of good character traits (virtues), such as kindness, courage, and honesty, secular virtue ethics emphasizes the importance of cultivating these traits through personal development and societal norms, rather than divine command.

Social Contract Theory: Philosophers like Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau proposed that morality arises from agreements or contracts between individuals for mutual benefit, based on reason and the need for social order, not religion.

In essence, secular people can ground their morals in principles like empathy, the desire to avoid harm, fairness, and the well-being of others, without needing a supernatural source for these values. Morality, in this view, can emerge from human relationships, experience, and the logical consequences of actions within a social context.

I wish the admins would ban AI from this forum. People like VA rely on it for accuracy, and you just can't.

[Immanuel Can]

It depends. Whatever ontology you propose has to be capable of justifying its own moral precepts.

So you presuppose moral percepts;

"Precept," not "percepts." Those are not the same. A "precept" is an axiom. A "percept" is something perceived.

No, I don't presuppose anything. Any worldview entails particular corollaries about what morality is. I'm using logic here, to deduce from a particular worldview what it can tell us about morality. And we can see that secularism entails nothing particular about morality at all, except that it has to be an illusion. It provides no basis for such.

So secularism leaves us in the following position: if false, secularism is incapable of telling us anything about whatever morality there might be; and if true, all it can lead us to conclude is that there is no truth to morality at all.

You seem rather confused.

Not a bit. I can see this very clearly, and can prove it to you, too. If you suppose otherwise, just test it: give me one moral axiom that secularism requires us to believe.

(Your "ontology" question is a category-error. To "exist" ontologically and in reality is not the same as to "exist" conceptually.)

I propose a secular ontology in which abortion is not wrong.

Well, in secular ontology (or more correctly, in the morality deducible from secular ontology) NOTHING is wrong. So you could as well have said, "I propose a secular ontology in which murder/rape/slavery/genocide...etc. is not wrong." And that would be correct: according to secularism, no vile thing is ever wrong, and no laudible thing is ever right. Nothing is either.

...for secularists. You forgot that bit.

Then you are a secularist.

No. I'm just helping you see what secularism entails. I'm not buying in.

Does an ontology require justification?

Its only "justification" is its correspondence to reality. It needs nothing more. But morality is different: morality entails value judgments about the ontologically-real. Value judgments have a sort of adjectival relation to the nouns of reality; they say what quality (moral) a thing has, not merely what it is as an object.

I'm waiting for you to tell me one moral precept or ethical axiom that secularism makes necesssary.

And I am waiting for one moral percept or ethical axiom that is ontologically necessary.

As long as you're a secularist, you'll never find one. But that's a fault of secularism, not of morality.

Since you can't, you should know I'm right about that. If you don't, you can test it: just come up with one such precept.

"Good luck, Jim."

You need all the luck in the universe, Jim.

See? You can't do it. Secularism doesn't warrant any moral axioms at all.

[Immanuel Can]

That isn't how it works. The fact that I may have a "bias" doesn't put any duty, obligation or even a basic reason upon you to adopt the same "bias."

Bias is a prerequisite for morality to develop...

Yeah, you said that already. It didn't become true since the last time.

Sorry...you're just not thinking accurately about this. Try harder, I guess.

The Islamist thinks his "best interest" is to beat his wives into submission, and to own as many slaves as he finds it useful to have.

What one thinks is their best interest, isn't necessarily so.
To influence them, one would be expected to make the case why their current acts do not suit their best interest.

Make that case, if it can be made. Why should an Islamist not beat his wives?

I'm here to push against your claims regarding secularists and their morality.

Well, then, give me one moral axiom that you believe a secularist must necessarily accept. Just one.

Secular morality can be founded and rooted within the needs of people.

No, actually, it cannot. You can't deduce from "I need" to "I'm entitled to." The secular worldview does not promise you your needs, far less your satisfactions, or your health, or the fulfillment of what you may regard as your self-interest. If it did, the world would be free of all conflict for secularists.

Morality does not need to some divine justification, simply 'I prefer this.'

The Islamists prefers to beat his wives. Are you now saying he's being moral?

But that's just back to Nietzsche: behind all morality is nothing but "the will to power," then.

I understand will to power to be from a place of abundance, not lack.

Nietzsche understood it as a thing that needed to be attained or grasped. He was not so oblivious as to imagine we come already having all the power we could ever want or need. He knew we desired more: that's why he called it a "will to," not simply "having of power."

Secular morality does not need to rest on anything to do with will to power.

Secularism has no moral axioms. Not one. Try to see if you can suggest one. You'll find you can't.

[Skepdick]

Any worldview entails particular corollaries about what morality is.

Nonsense. Worldviews which reject morality as existing (ontologically) have no such entailments.

I'm using logic here, to deduce from a particular worldview what it can tell us about morality.

You are abusing logic for sure. What can any worldview tell you about non-existents?

It provides no basis for such.

So what's the basis for your ontology?

If you suppose otherwise, just test it: give me one moral axiom that secularism requires us to believe.

What does a "requirement" amount to on your ontology?

(Your "ontology" question is a category-error. To "exist" ontologically and in reality is not the same as to "exist" conceptually.)

It's not my category error. It's yours. You insisted that ontologies are to be proposed.

It's very very strange to me that you'd propose; rather than discover that morality exists.

Alas - here we are.

Well, in secular ontology (or more correctly, in the morality deducible from secular ontology) NOTHING is wrong.

OK... and on your ontology does morality exist? Without proposing it to exist.

No. I'm just helping you see what secularism entails. I'm not buying in.

I am not buying that you are not buying it. It seems to me secularism entails exactly the same thing theism entails.

Unjustifiable moral assertions.

Its only "justification" is its correspondence to reality. It needs nothing more.

That's incoherent. It's impossible for ontology to correspond to reality. The ontology IS reality.

You seem to have confused ontology for a mental percept. Shame.

But morality is different: morality entails value judgments about the ontologically-real.

So you agree; then. IF morality exists (big IF); then morality is necessarily non-ontological.

Weird own goal...

Value judgments have a sort of adjectival relation to the nouns of reality; they say what quality (moral) a thing has, not merely what it is as an object.

Your confusion is quote pedestrian... Pretending to justify judgments about your ontology USING your ontology.

As long as you're a secularist, you'll never find one. But that's a fault of secularism, not of morality.

You aren't a secularist. Why can't you produce one? Isn't that your fault, not of morality.

See? You can't do it. Secularism doesn't warrant any moral axioms at all.

No different to theism it seems.

[Immanuel Can]

Any worldview entails particular corollaries about what morality is.

Nonsense. Worldviews which reject morality as existing (ontologically) have no such entailments.

Secularism, you mean? And Atheism? You're exactly right! You finally see it. Secularism entails nothing at all about what is moral or immoral. It has no information on any such at all.

It provides no basis for such.

So what's the basis for your ontology?

Well, why do you believe secuarlism? What's the basis for that ontology? Is it not that you believe it to be true? Is it not that you believe it best reflects reality? It would be a bit lunatic, wouldn't it, if you knew secularism was not reality, but you insisted on believing it anyway...?

The same is true for the Theist: he believes it because he thinks it best reflects reality.

If you suppose otherwise, just test it: give me one moral axiom that secularism requires us to believe.

What does a "requirement" amount to...?

Just logical entailment. Nothing more fancy than that. (Sorry: you made a weird and uncontextual use of the term "ontology," so I had to delete it in order to make your question make sense).

(Your "ontology" question is a category-error. To "exist" ontologically and in reality is not the same as to "exist" conceptually.)

It's not my category error. It's yours. You insisted that ontologies are to be proposed.

Of course ontologies are "proposed." Do you not "propose" that secularism is true? So no, it's not a category error in my case, but it was in yours.

It's very very strange to me that you'd propose; rather than discover that morality exists.

Now you've made "ontology" out to be the same as "morality." Another category error: let me correct it, if I may. My axiom is, "Ontology precedes ethics." That means that ontology comes before, exists before, and is a different thing from what it entails, namely morality.

In simple terms, you need to know what exists before you can say what's right. That's the simple version.

Well, in secular ontology (or more correctly, in the morality deducible from secular ontology) NOTHING is wrong.

OK... and on your ontology does morality exist?

On all non-secular ontologies, a morality can be predicated or deduced. From secularism, nothing can be predicated or deduced about morality.

It's impossible for ontology to correspond to reality.

That's exactly what it does. See the "-ology" part? It implicates "knowledge." Reality is what exists; ontology is what we believe about what exists.

So you agree; then. IF morality exists (big IF); then morality is necessarily non-ontological.

I've been saying all along: ontology precedes morality. Get it yet?

As long as you're a secularist, you'll never find one. But that's a fault of secularism, not of morality.

You aren't a secularist.

No, but you are. So have a try, and see if you can come up with a single such moral axiom that every secularist must believe.

Footnote: I think you get it now. If you didn't, you'd have produced such an axiom. But you've got nothing, and your evasiveness betrays that you realize it. So I'm content to leave it there, since we both know the point is made. You're trying a little too hard to get away from the obvious.

[Skepdick]

Secularism, you mean? And Atheism? You're exactly right! You finally see it. Secularism entails nothing at all about what is moral or immoral. It has no information on any such at all.

So identical to your worldview then...

But morality is different: morality entails value judgments about the ontologically-real.

Well, why do you believe secuarlism?

Well why do you believe I believe secularism?

What's the basis for that ontology?

What's the foundation of the basis of your ontology?

Is it not that you believe it to be true? Is it not that you believe it best reflects reality? It would be a bit lunatic, wouldn't it, if you knew secularism was not reality, but you insisted on believing it anyway...?

Wouldn't you be a bit of a lunatic if you believed in reality; and then an ontology on top of reality?

The same is true for the Theist: he believes it because he thinks it best reflects reality.

That's a really peculiar expression. An ontology doesn't reflect anything. In fact "ontology" is synonymous with "reality".

Just logical entailment. Nothing more fancy than that. (Sorry: you made a weird and uncontextual use of the term "ontology," so I had to delete it in order to make your question make sense).

You think my use of "ontology" (a term synonymous with "reality" and "all that exists") is weird and uncontextual? What a lunatic...

Of course ontologies are "proposed." Do you not "propose" that secularism is true?

What does that even mean? Do you think reality (our shared ontology) is true?

Now you've made "ontology" out to be the same as "morality." Another category error: let me correct it, if I may.

You may not. Ontology is everything that exists. If morality is not the same as ontology (everything that exists).

Then morality is not part of everything that exists.

So much for the moral entailment of theism...

My axiom is, "Ontology precedes ethics."

But your other axiom was "ontology is everything proposed to exist". You don't propose ethics exists?

OK... What are you talking about then?

That means that ontology comes before, exists before, and is a different thing from what it entails, namely morality.

In simple terms, you need to know what exists before you can say what's right. That's the simple version.

I know that. Which is precisely why I am asking you if ethics and morality exist?

If you are talking about something which doesn't exist - say so.

On all non-secular ontologies, a morality can be predicated or deduced. From secularism, nothing can be predicated or deduced about morality.

That's incoherent. Ontology is synonymous with reality (all that exists). You think there's such thing as secular reality and non-secular reality?

How drunk are you?

See the "-ology" part? It implicates "knowledge." Reality is what exists; ontology is what we believe about what exists.

Again, how drunk are you. If the "-ology" only implicate knowledge; why. is it also implicating your beliefs?

Ontology is what exists. Your beliefs about what exists... are exactly that - beliefs. Not ontology.

I've been saying all along: ontology precedes morality. Get it yet?

I don't... If morality doesn't exist - then what are you talking about?

No, but you are.

I am a secularist? That's news to me... Good job on being wrong again.

Footnote: I think you get it now. If you didn't, you'd have produced such an axiom. But you've got nothing, and your evasiveness betrays that you realize it. So I'm content to leave it there, since we both know the point is made. You're trying a little too hard to get away from the obvious.

That's a perfect self-description there.

Now lets get you to internalize it.

[Immanuel Can]

Footnote: I think you get it now. If you didn't, you'd have produced such an axiom. But you've got nothing, and your evasiveness betrays that you realize it. So I'm content to leave it there, since we both know the point is made. You're trying a little too hard to get away from the obvious.

That's a perfect self-description there.

No, I don't believe you. I think you get it. You simply are never going to admit you do.

Have a nice day, I guess.

[Skepdick]

Footnote: I think you get it now. If you didn't, you'd have produced such an axiom. But you've got nothing, and your evasiveness betrays that you realize it. So I'm content to leave it there, since we both know the point is made. You're trying a little too hard to get away from the obvious.

That's a perfect self-description there.

No, I don't believe you. I think you get it. You simply are never going to admit you do.

Have a nice day, I guess.

I don't believe that you don't believe me.

I guess now you know that everyone knows you are a fraud.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't believe that you don't believe me.

I don't covet your agreement. I can see you're simply gratuitously unwilling to agree.