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

[Skepdick]

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.

What can I say? As Eastern Orthodox I find your misuse of scholastic methodology to be ethically misguided.

[Immanuel Can]

As Eastern Orthodox I find your misuse of scholastic methodology to be ethically misguided.

I'm not a Scholastic. Sorry.

[Skepdick]

As Eastern Orthodox I find your misuse of scholastic methodology to be ethically misguided.

I'm not a Scholastic. Sorry.

You seem to be struggling with reading comprehension.

I didn't say you are a Scholastic. I said you are misusing scholastic methodology.

[Immanuel Can]

As Eastern Orthodox I find your misuse of scholastic methodology to be ethically misguided.

I'm not a Scholastic. Sorry.

I said you are misusing scholastic methodology.

You seem to not know what you're talking about. But I've come to realize, after talking with you for some time, it's all an evasion, all just a trolling anyway. I've got better things to do.

[Skepdick]

I'm not a Scholastic. Sorry.

I said you are misusing scholastic methodology.

You seem to not know what you're talking about. But I've come to realize, after talking with you for some time, it's all an evasion, all just a trolling anyway. I've got better things to do.

Yes, it only seems that way. If you don't understand what I am talking about; I'll gladly correct your misunderstanding.

If you had better things to do you wouldn't do what you did throughout this entire conversation. Bickering over moral justification.

[Immanuel Can]

If you had better things to do you wouldn't do what you did throughout this entire conversation.

No, it's an important conversation...just one that can't be had with somebody who's just trolling, obviously.

[Skepdick]

If you had better things to do you wouldn't do what you did throughout this entire conversation.

No, it's an important conversation...just one that can't be had with somebody who's just trolling, obviously.

OK, then stop trolling with your silly scholastic methods and lets have the conversation.

[Immanuel Can]

If you had better things to do you wouldn't do what you did throughout this entire conversation.

No, it's an important conversation...just one that can't be had with somebody who's just trolling, obviously.

OK, then stop trolling with your silly scholastic methods and lets have the conversation.

No, I gave you lots of time to see...and you say you can't...so I'll "believe" you and move on.

[Skepdick]

No, I gave you lots of time to see...and you say you can't...so I'll "believe" you and move on.

You mean you wasted lots of time deflecting? Yeah. We know.

We are still waiting on you to justify even one moral conclusion.

Should we "believe" you and move on?

[CIN2]

Secularism doesn't warrant any moral axioms at all.

Nor does religion. No moral propositions are entailed either by the proposition that God exists, or by the proposition that God does not exist. If you think this isn't so, prove it.

We are still waiting on you to justify even one moral conclusion.

We are indeed. How about it, IC? Give us a moral assertion and show us how you derive it from the proposition that God exists. Either do it, or admit that you can't.

[Skepdick]

We are indeed. How about it, IC? Give us a moral assertion and show us how you derive it from the proposition that God exists. Either do it, or admit that you can't.

All that troll does is prance about how he can do stuff secularists can't do.

And then he proceeds to NOT do it.

[Immanuel Can]

Secularism doesn't warrant any moral axioms at all.

Nor does religion. No moral propositions are entailed either by the proposition that God exists, or by the proposition that God does not exist.

But that, of course, is not where "religion" stops. It always says there's a certain type of God, with a certain intention in creation, and a certain moral orientation. So both the morals from God directly and the natural laws of the world give testimony to that purpose, and morality can be deduced from both.

If you think this isn't so, prove it.

Very, very easily.
Let's take a "religion" neither you nor I believes is true, just so we're not partisan. Let's call it the religion of "Moo."

The god Moo made everything. (Of course, all Mooists would have to believe this, by definition of being a "Mooist.")
Moo made women only 1/2 the value of a man. (This could be both given in Mooist revelation, and perhaps deducible from the natural world Moo is said to have made, in that women are made smaller and weaker than men.)
Therefore, to value men by a 2-1 ratio over women is moral. (This is deducible from the two previous claims.)

Now, neither you nor I believes in Moo. But we'd both have to concede that if Moo existed, had made the world, and said that he made women to be only half the worth of a man, the rest would logically follow.

It's just that easy to get a morality out of a religion or ideology that holds that the universe has some kind of teleological or purposive creation. And all of them do. We don't even have to agree that their morality is genuinely moral; we can see that, if we believed what Mooists believe, they'd be right. We just think they're wrong, because you and I don't believe in Moo.

Okay. Now, let's try the same sort of deduction from secularism:

Secularism holds that the universe is essentially an undirected product of time plus chance.
Human beings are merely an accidental product of this time-plus-chance universe.
What is moral is....what?

[Immanuel Can]

And then he proceeds to NOT do it.

Too bad for you, I just did.

[Skepdick]

And then he proceeds to NOT do it.

Too bad for you, I just did.

Everyone but you fails to see that you haven't done what you claim to have done.

[Immanuel Can]

And then he proceeds to NOT do it.

Too bad for you, I just did.

Everyone but you fails to see that you haven't done what you claim to have done.

Well, let's see about that.