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

[Gary Childress]

From a secular perspective, there's nothing that can be morally bad. I don't share that view, and I admit that it is one of many things that makes me glad not to be a secularist.

I don't share that view either and neither do all secularists. I'm not convinced that morality can't be understood by secularism. I think you're creating a very shallow and unfair interpretation of secularism.

In my experience, since Christianity is built upon a foundation of sand, Christian apologists routinely create straw men, present double standards, etc. A never-ending parade of logical fallacies often capped by willful ignorance. If it were built on truth (a solid foundation), this would not be the case.

To be fair to Christians, they are little different than most other faiths.

I'm agnostic when it comes to afterlife/otherworldly things. Unlike so many others (apparently) God hasn't materialized in front of me to give the final word on anything. I'm still waiting for that to happen. Until then, I'll be skeptical enough to tolerate pretty much all of the religions. I mean, for all I know, maybe God really did tell Abraham to kill his own son just to test his obedience and before that, wiped out almost all of humanity in a flood because he got angry at us.

I'd like to think that I have an open mind toward the world; however, according to IC, secularism is a religious faith also. Can't win against die hard believers in anything. \_('_')_/

[ThinkOfOne]

I don't share that view either and neither do all secularists. I'm not convinced that morality can't be understood by secularism. I think you're creating a very shallow and unfair interpretation of secularism.

In my experience, since Christianity is built upon a foundation of sand, Christian apologists routinely create straw men, present double standards, etc. A never-ending parade of logical fallacies often capped by willful ignorance. If it were built on truth (a solid foundation), this would not be the case.

To be fair to Christians, they are little different than most other faiths.

I'm agnostic when it comes to afterlife/otherworldly things. Unlike so many others (apparently) God hasn't materialized in front of me to give the final word on anything. I'm still waiting for that to happen. Until then, I'll be skeptical enough to tolerate pretty much all of the religions. I mean, for all I know, maybe God really did tell Abraham to kill his own son just to test his obedience and before that, wiped out almost all of humanity in a flood because he got angry at us.

I'd like to think that I have an open mind toward the world; however, according to IC, secularism is a religious faith also. Can't win against die hard believers in anything. \_('_')_/

From what gather the only denominations that take the Bible so literally are Fundamentalist/Evangelical Christians. Most are sensible enough to take stories like you mentioned as allegory. From what I gather, IC is one such Christian. They often take words and redefine them in an attempt to get them to fit their worldview. In other words, they square-peg them. "See, it does fit". Other words that immediately come to mind are "righteousness", "repentance", "keep", "love" - the list goes on and on. What's more they square-peg things in lots of other ways: interpreting Bible verses/passages, the political views they hold and on and on. It's a dishonest worldview for dishonest people. They live in a morass of double standards and hypocrisy. A veritable factory for "white-washed tombs", if not "sheep in wolves clothing".

Fairly recently I was talking to a Buddhist who was telling me that he had started going to a Christian church which surprise me. So I asked him if he was aware of core beliefs such as: Jesus paid for their sins; no one can make themselves righteous; for all intents and purposes, God grants them forgiveness for the asking; their sins are not their fault - it is because of the fallen nature of man. HIs response? "Sounds like the makings for psychopaths". Which it is. Not that all or even many necessarily become psychopaths, but the makings are there all the same. I know one such individual personally. That said, this does beget a strong tendency toward extreme narcissism, selfishness/self-centeredness, dishonesty, hypocrisy, etc. When it comes down to it, they believe things are true because they believe them. I suspect that this is why so many of them are prone to demagoguery, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, transphobia, believing in conspiracy theories, etc.

[Immanuel Can]

Pain seems morally bad to me when a person inflicts it on another unjustifiably. Does it not seem that way to you?

From a secular perspective, there's nothing that can be morally bad. I don't share that view, and I admit that it is one of many things that makes me glad not to be a secularist.

I don't share that view either and neither do all secularists.

Yes, I know.

Secularism is like jumping off a cliff and trying to stop half way down. So many such people want to banish God, and keep morality. But logically, they can't: so they just go on living illogically. They seem to consider that preferable to living out the consequences of their own secularism. And if you ask me, they're right: living as a thorough secularist would be quite ghastly and amoral? Who would ever wish to do it -- other than somebody like a Dahmer or DeSade?

So I'm very glad for their hypocrisy; it keeps us all much safer.

But Nietzsche saw through it, and called their bluff. So did Dostoevsky. And when two men who disagree so fundamentally -- one, an ardent Atheist and the other a passionate Theist -- you can be quite reassured they're telling you what they recognize as the truth. It's not merely some partisan view.

[Immanuel Can]

From a secular perspective, there's nothing that can be morally bad. I don't share that view, and I admit that it is one of many things that makes me glad not to be a secularist.

I don't share that view either and neither do all secularists. I'm not convinced that morality can't be understood by secularism. I think you're creating a very shallow and unfair interpretation of secularism.

In my experience, since Christianity is built upon a foundation of sand, Christian apologists routinely create straw men, present double standards, etc. A never-ending parade of logical fallacies often capped by willful ignorance. If it were built on truth (a solid foundation), this would not be the case.

That's a significant allegation. And I wouldn't be surprised if you could find a few cases where it holds true. But do you have any reason to suppose that the Christian case itself is like that, or are you only speaking about the fallibilities of a few human souls?

But let’s play along with that. Let’s pretend that not only are a few people of your acquaintance such hypocrites, but that no Christian could possibly explain why morality exists. We’ll pretend, even though it’s not true.

How would that help secularism?

That is, even if every Hindu, Islamist, Zoroastrian, Buddhist, and every pagan of every kind, along with every Christian, were all incapable of grounding any morality. Would that imply that secularism could?

Evidently not. So secularism its own moral burden to meet, as is indicated by the OP. And it’s to that that our attention should be given, since no failure of any other system changes even one iota the problem for secularism.

[Immanuel Can]

...according to IC, secularism is a religious faith also.

I'm sorry, Gary: I don't recall ever having said exactly that.

However, secularism is a faith...just an irreligious one. And you can tell, because secularists (dis-)believe in God with no warrant at all. One might say it's less than a faith, since faith can be the product of evidence, and when rightly understood, always is: but secularism goes on no such thing, so it's what Sartre called "bad faith," meaning "belief totally devoid of justification and/or contrary to facts".

[Lacewing]

...according to IC, secularism is a religious faith also.

However, secularism is a faith...just an irreligious one.

For the 500,000th time, lacking belief does not require faith for everyone... rather, it's just a lack of belief. Surely you can recognize this as true for yourself too, in regard to the things you lack belief in.

And you can tell, because secularists (dis-)believe in God with no warrant at all. One might say it's less than a faith,

One can truthfully say it's not a faith at all. You might not say that, but you don't speak or think for everyone.

since faith can be the product of evidence, and when rightly understood, always is:

but secularism goes on no such thing, so it's what Sartre called "bad faith," meaning "belief totally devoid of justification and/or contrary to facts".

For many people:

Lack of belief is not a belief.

Belief doesn't require facts.

Why do you spin such unnecessary distortions?

It's very simple to say that you believe what you believe, and I do not share that belief... nor do I believe a lot of other beliefs that people have. If you don't believe as other people do, does that mean you're ignoring facts? Does it mean that your lack of belief in their belief is based on faith? That's not how it works for me.

[Immanuel Can]

...according to IC, secularism is a religious faith also.

However, secularism is a faith...just an irreligious one.

For the 500,000th time, lacking belief does not require faith for everyone... rather, it's just a lack of belief.

"Lack of belief" takes nobody anywhere. You can't know anything or do anything or live a life without believing things, because it's impossible in practice. To put your feet on the floor in the morning, you must believe the floor will be there. To eat food, you must believe its not poisoned. To know what's worth doing with your day, you have to believe it will work out well, even before it happens. That's certainly faith.

But a secularist choose to remain ignorant of what he believes, and believe it only subconsciously, acting on it like it's the truth that simply cannot be doubted. Still, that's believing...it's just ignorant belief. That's Sartre's point.

And you can tell, because secularists (dis-)believe in God with no warrant at all. One might say it's less than a faith,

One can truthfully say it's not a faith at all.

One cannot. But a secularist can try to say that, because he can choose to remain ignorant of his own beliefs, as above...just by never thinking careful about them, never examining them, and treating them as trusted assumptions only.

Don't think bad faith is a characteristic of religion only. It's characteristic of everybody. Sartre had that figured out.

[Gary Childress]

...according to IC, secularism is a religious faith also.

I'm sorry, Gary: I don't recall ever having said exactly that.

However, secularism is a faith...just an irreligious one. And you can tell, because secularists (dis-)believe in God with no warrant at all. One might say it's less than a faith, since faith can be the product of evidence, and when rightly understood, always is: but secularism goes on no such thing, so it's what Sartre called "bad faith," meaning "belief totally devoid of justification and/or contrary to facts".

Do you disbelieve that the Buddha broke the cycle of death and rebirth? And if so, what "warrants" your disbelief?

[henry quirk]

The lil butterfly is just settin' things up so she can whine-quit the conversation becuz another...

bad man won't let her do what she wants.

[Immanuel Can]

...according to IC, secularism is a religious faith also.

I'm sorry, Gary: I don't recall ever having said exactly that.

However, secularism is a faith...just an irreligious one. And you can tell, because secularists (dis-)believe in God with no warrant at all. One might say it's less than a faith, since faith can be the product of evidence, and when rightly understood, always is: but secularism goes on no such thing, so it's what Sartre called "bad faith," meaning "belief totally devoid of justification and/or contrary to facts".

Do you disbelieve that the Buddha broke the cycle of death and rebirth? And if so, what "warrants" your disbelief?

"Broke the cycle"? Do you mean "achieved Nibbana"? Or "became enlightened"? Or "escaped the wheel of samsara"? Or something else?

[Immanuel Can]

The lil butterfly is just settin' things up so she can whine-quit the conversation becuz another...

bad man won't let her do what she wants.

Yeah, I know.

[Gary Childress]

I'm sorry, Gary: I don't recall ever having said exactly that.

However, secularism is a faith...just an irreligious one. And you can tell, because secularists (dis-)believe in God with no warrant at all. One might say it's less than a faith, since faith can be the product of evidence, and when rightly understood, always is: but secularism goes on no such thing, so it's what Sartre called "bad faith," meaning "belief totally devoid of justification and/or contrary to facts".

Do you disbelieve that the Buddha broke the cycle of death and rebirth? And if so, what "warrants" your disbelief?

"Broke the cycle"? Do you mean "achieved Nibbana"? Or "became enlightened"? Or "escaped the wheel of samsara"? Or something else?

As I understand it, the Buddha is also reputed to have not been reincarnated as all living beings are (according to established traditions of his time and place). In other words, he achieved permanent release from this world. Do you believe the Buddha did that or any of those other things you mention above? And if not, what "warrants" your disbelief? Apparently, people are not warranted to disbelieve in the existence of God. I'm curious what other religious beliefs people are unwarranted to disbelieve.

[Immanuel Can]

Do you disbelieve that the Buddha broke the cycle of death and rebirth? And if so, what "warrants" your disbelief?

"Broke the cycle"? Do you mean "achieved Nibbana"? Or "became enlightened"? Or "escaped the wheel of samsara"? Or something else?

As I understand it, the Buddha is also reputed to have not been reincarnated as all living beings are (according to established traditions of his time and place). In other words, he achieved permanent release from this world. Do you believe the Buddha did that or any of those other things you mention above? And if not, what "warrants" your disbelief? Apparently, people are not warranted to disbelieve in the existence of God. I'm curious what other religious beliefs people are unwarranted to disbelieve.

Well, let's also put the same question to you, since you pose it. You're not a Buddhist, are you? Why aren't you? Does your disbelief in Buddhism turn out to be unwarranted? Or do you think you have good reasons for not supposing reincarnation, and endless cycles of rebirth, and samsara, and karma and dharma and the termination of desire, and the resignation to fate...

And if you don't disbelieve Buddhism, what about Hinduism? Or Islam, or Christianity? Do you imagine you believe them all, at the same time? And is your rejection of some of them unwarranted?

How about when they contradict one another? Don't you then have to choose which you find the more plausible and evidentiary belief, and invest in that, at least until something changes?

So why are you an agnostic? What's put your needle there, instead of on one of the other options?

I suspect that when you answer that, you'll also have all the answer you need to your question...but we can see.

[Belinda]

Haven’t those who reject morality just because of its religious roots ended up constructing another belief system — under the name of ethics — which might itself have mystical foundations?

For example, we can see nearly the same values embraced by Plato also present in Gnosticism. The Demiurge turns into Yaldabaoth; the soul is a fragment of God, while the body is created by false gods, external to the true divine. Thus, what we call morality ends up belonging to the creators of the body, whereas ethics becomes associated with the one who gives the soul.

Religion always includes a foundation myth. If foundation myth is rejected one hopes that a code of ethics will remain, and whatever ritual is still happy.
I can imagine Islam without the Holy Prophet, but I can't imagine Christianity without Jesus.

[Gary Childress]

"Broke the cycle"? Do you mean "achieved Nibbana"? Or "became enlightened"? Or "escaped the wheel of samsara"? Or something else?

As I understand it, the Buddha is also reputed to have not been reincarnated as all living beings are (according to established traditions of his time and place). In other words, he achieved permanent release from this world. Do you believe the Buddha did that or any of those other things you mention above? And if not, what "warrants" your disbelief? Apparently, people are not warranted to disbelieve in the existence of God. I'm curious what other religious beliefs people are unwarranted to disbelieve.

Well, let's also put the same question to you, since you pose it. You're not a Buddhist, are you? Why aren't you? Does your disbelief in Buddhism turn out to be unwarranted? Or do you think you have good reasons for not supposing reincarnation, and endless cycles of rebirth, and samsara, and karma and dharma and the termination of desire, and the resignation to fate...

And if you don't disbelieve Buddhism, what about Hinduism? Or Islam, or Christianity? Do you imagine you believe them all, at the same time? And is your rejection of some of them unwarranted?

I don't think it is unwarranted to reject any religion. Sure, people can believe if they want, however, if you have no evidence to support your belief then you can't really demand it of others, can you?

How about when they contradict one another? Don't you then have to choose which you find the more plausible and evidentiary belief, and invest in that, at least until something changes?

Why do I have to figure out which one I find "more plausible"? Can't I think that perhaps there's a grain of truth in them all or else they are all more or less flawed. Why do I have to choose one?

So why are you an agnostic? What's put your needle there, instead of on one of the other options?

Because, I'm hesitant to pretend to know things that are unknowable to me.

I suspect that when you answer that, you'll also have all the answer you need to your question...but we can see.

So I've answered your questions. Now answer mine, what is unwarranted about disbelief in God?