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

[Belinda]

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. \_('_')_/

It was natural for Abraham to presume God was testing his faith. Certainly a test of faith was part of the story. But the main theme was that God had changed from needing to be propitiated to needing to be recognised as dispenser of mercy.

I hoped more posters including you, Gary, would have stopped personifying God.

[iambiguous]

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.

On the other hand, any number of secularists -- ideologues, deontologists, genes > memes, etc. -- insist that, given their own One True Path, they and only they can differentiate morally good from morally bad behaviors.

Again, all you have to do is ask them.

As for the religionists among us, they often have a plethora of divine Scriptures to make that distinction for them.

The main difference, it seems, revolves around the fierce assumption that only their very own divine path to moral commandments, immortality and salvation will actually get you there.

Instead, in my view, here and now, what some really mean is that they are glad to be Christians. Why? Because [many insist] if you are not a Christian it's burn baby burn on into infinity.

But, first and foremost, they are not fractured and fragmented. That's the part most disturbing to the objectivists among us. It's one thing for someone to argue that your own value judgments are wrong, and another thing altogether for someone to speculate that in a No God world morality itself is "beyond good and evil".

[Lacewing]

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.

Do you lack belief in anything? Does that keep you from functioning?

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.

You don't know what everyone does.

Don't think bad faith is a characteristic of religion only. It's characteristic of everybody.

Sure. That doesn't mean that anyone with a lack of belief in a god of one sort or another is practicing bad faith.

[Lacewing]

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.

You flatter yourself...

[Gary Childress]

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. \_('_')_/

It was natural for Abraham to presume God was testing his faith. Certainly a test of faith was part of the story. But the main theme was that God had changed from needing to be propitiated to needing to be recognised as dispenser of mercy.

I hoped more posters including you, Gary, would have stopped personifying God.

Assuming Abraham really did hear a voice and was not imagining or delusional, he thought it was "God". Maybe it was a voice from the ruler of the Matrix or something for all I know.

According to Walter Stace, it seems to be an interesting tendency for mystics of different cultures to have mystical experiences that conform to the beliefs of their partcular culture. For example, a mystic growing up in a Christian society usually has a Christian-themed religious experience and a mystic in a Buddhist society, tends to experiences a Buddhist-themed experience. Apparently, there are much fewer cases where the mystical experience of a mystic radically departs from their cultural background. So maybe there's an element of indoctrination involved or else maybe Yahweh only talks to Christians and Buddhists only experience what the Buddha understood as reality. Who knows. If we embrace religious explanations, then I suppose almost anything could be the case.

[popeye1945]

It matters not that you chose to believe that religion is the source of morality or not; morality and religion come from the only place at all possible, the subjective consciousness of humanity. These are extensions of that consciousness projected into a meaningless world. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things, as with Religion itself, belief does not spell truth.

[Immanuel Can]

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?

So, because you have no evidence to support your agnosticism, you just don't demand evidence of anybody else, either?

That might be fair, in that it's at least equal; but it hardly amounts to "warrant" for anything.

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"?

Plausibility is how we make estimations of the value of views when it's not possible to get absolute certainty. There's no better way, and no other way.

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.

How do you decide, then, that a thing is "unknowable"? Wouldn't you have to stop at saying instead, "Well, at the present moment, Gary doesn't know...but he may know tomorrow, and there's no warrant to assume he never will?"

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?

Is that your new question?

Nothing's unwarranted about it, if it's true. But it's also not very profound or useful, is it? I mean, if God is actually "unknowable," it might be as good as any other alternative. A happy delusion about that wouldn't get you much, but it's unlikely to hurt you, either. So then agnosticism, Hinduism, Islam, whatever, it's just all a wash: we can all afford to believe anything or nothing.

But what if God IS knowable? Then sticking to agnosticism would be exceedingly foolish, would it not? It would be changed from a mere "I don't know" to an "I refuse to know."

[Immanuel Can]

It matters not that you chose to believe that religion is the source of morality or not...

If that were the case, then secularism would be able to do the same job in respect to morality as religions can; namely, to ground some moral claim, and ideally, a whole bunch of moral claims, so a society can form using it. Let's see if it can.

So what is one moral claim/axiom/duty/demand/commandment/requirement or whatever that secularism places on every secularist? If you can give even one, you've got a case on that.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Do you lack belief in anything? Does that keep you from functioning?

"Lack" implies a "need" not being met. I believe in what I believe to be true, and don't "lack" anything in that respect. But I will concede that secularists do "lack" belief in God...and consquently, a great many other things, one of which is any grounds for their belief in morality.

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.

You don't know what everyone does.

I'm just saying what some people I've talked with do. But if a secularist really thinks, he won't remain a secularist. He'll pretty quickly realize that view is bankrupt of any means of generating morality, and that he's had to assume somebody else's moral beliefs even to remain practically moral himself. Secularism gives him no such grounds.

[Belinda]

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. \_('_')_/

It was natural for Abraham to presume God was testing his faith. Certainly a test of faith was part of the story. But the main theme was that God had changed from needing to be propitiated to needing to be recognised as dispenser of mercy.

I hoped more posters including you, Gary, would have stopped personifying God.

Assuming Abraham really did hear a voice and was not imagining or delusional, he thought it was "God". Maybe it was a voice from the ruler of the Matrix or something for all I know.

According to Walter Stace, it seems to be an interesting tendency for mystics of different cultures to have mystical experiences that conform to the beliefs of their partcular culture. For example, a mystic growing up in a Christian society usually has a Christian-themed religious experience and a mystic in a Buddhist society, tends to experiences a Buddhist-themed experience. Apparently, there are much fewer cases where the mystical experience of a mystic radically departs from their cultural background. So maybe there's an element of indoctrination involved or else maybe Yahweh only talks to Christians and Buddhists only experience what the Buddha understood as reality. Who knows. If we embrace religious explanations, then I suppose almost anything could be the case.

The interesting thing about this story of Abraham and Isaac is not whether it's 'true' or not. The interesting thing is that a group of people selected this story to tell about God. At one time people did believe as a matter of course that God walked and talked with people----this was not worthy of note. The theme of the story is that Jahweh had become merciful and no longer required blood sacrifice. I expect you yourself feel that mercy is a virtue. The Bible, generally ,is a story about love.

I think people who enjoy significant literature enjoy The Bible, regardless of their faith .

[iambiguous]

But what if God IS knowable? Then sticking to agnosticism would be exceedingly foolish, would it not? It would be changed from a mere "I don't know" to an "I refuse to know."

Which God though? Known by which people?

Then the part where those here -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions -- insist it is, without exception, their own God or their own spiritual path. And thus it would be exceedingly foolish to believe in any other God/Religious Path than their own.

After all, it's not like they can't insist in turn it is the failure of Christians to recognize their very own one true path to immortality and salvation that is foolish.

But what on Earth does it mean for someone to "know God"? Does this involve an understanding of Him that transcends leaps of faith, wagers and scripture?

If so, what does this knowledge of Him actually convey and encompass given your day to day interactions with those who reject your God or spiritual path? And what demonstrable proof can be provided to confirm that what you claim to know about God, others can know too?

In fact, if they don't come around to your own set of assumptions, they are often said they are doomed...damned forever and ever.

Only many are saying exactly same thing about Christians.

[Gary Childress]

It was natural for Abraham to presume God was testing his faith. Certainly a test of faith was part of the story. But the main theme was that God had changed from needing to be propitiated to needing to be recognised as dispenser of mercy.

I hoped more posters including you, Gary, would have stopped personifying God.

Assuming Abraham really did hear a voice and was not imagining or delusional, he thought it was "God". Maybe it was a voice from the ruler of the Matrix or something for all I know.

According to Walter Stace, it seems to be an interesting tendency for mystics of different cultures to have mystical experiences that conform to the beliefs of their partcular culture. For example, a mystic growing up in a Christian society usually has a Christian-themed religious experience and a mystic in a Buddhist society, tends to experiences a Buddhist-themed experience. Apparently, there are much fewer cases where the mystical experience of a mystic radically departs from their cultural background. So maybe there's an element of indoctrination involved or else maybe Yahweh only talks to Christians and Buddhists only experience what the Buddha understood as reality. Who knows. If we embrace religious explanations, then I suppose almost anything could be the case.

The interesting thing about this story of Abraham and Isaac is not whether it's 'true' or not. The interesting thing is that a group of people selected this story to tell about God. At one time people did believe as a matter of course that God walked and talked with people----this was not worthy of note. The theme of the story is that Jahweh had become merciful and no longer required blood sacrifice. I expect you yourself feel that mercy is a virtue. The Bible, generally ,is a story about love.

I think people who enjoy significant literature enjoy The Bible, regardless of their faith .

Literature is fine. But to actually believe that there is a God who once required blood sacrifice is a little over the top, if you ask me. It seems absurd at this point in human civilization to believe that a benevolent being that created all that is, needs blood sacrifice for any reason. It sounds archaic and primitive.

[popeye1945]

It matters not that you chose to believe that religion is the source of morality or not...

If that were the case, then secularism would be able to do the same job in respect to morality as religions can; namely, to ground some moral claim, and ideally, a whole bunch of moral claims, so a society can form using it. Let's see if it can.

So what is one moral claim/axiom/duty/demand/commandment/requirement or whatever that secularism places on every secularist? If you can give even one, you've got a case on that.

Even religion gets some things right: " Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." There is no source of meaning, understanding, or judgment other than through our common biology. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. Moralities foundation is the security and well-being of biological subjects, most often in groups, as the foundation of society. Only in groups or societies is there morality. In nature, it is life, lives upon life. Societies, you might conclude, are survival tools of any group/pack/gang, or society, and can be seen in the natural world. If you believe in the supernatural as a source of morality, you are living your life at least once removed from reality. This is not a healthy proposition and a very divisive one. The biological commandment is security/survival and the well-being of the group/gang/pack of society's individuals.

[Belinda]

Assuming Abraham really did hear a voice and was not imagining or delusional, he thought it was "God". Maybe it was a voice from the ruler of the Matrix or something for all I know.

According to Walter Stace, it seems to be an interesting tendency for mystics of different cultures to have mystical experiences that conform to the beliefs of their partcular culture. For example, a mystic growing up in a Christian society usually has a Christian-themed religious experience and a mystic in a Buddhist society, tends to experiences a Buddhist-themed experience. Apparently, there are much fewer cases where the mystical experience of a mystic radically departs from their cultural background. So maybe there's an element of indoctrination involved or else maybe Yahweh only talks to Christians and Buddhists only experience what the Buddha understood as reality. Who knows. If we embrace religious explanations, then I suppose almost anything could be the case.

The interesting thing about this story of Abraham and Isaac is not whether it's 'true' or not. The interesting thing is that a group of people selected this story to tell about God. At one time people did believe as a matter of course that God walked and talked with people----this was not worthy of note. The theme of the story is that Jahweh had become merciful and no longer required blood sacrifice. I expect you yourself feel that mercy is a virtue. The Bible, generally ,is a story about love.

I think people who enjoy significant literature enjoy The Bible, regardless of their faith .

Literature is fine. But to actually believe that there is a God who once required blood sacrifice is a little over the top, if you ask me. It seems absurd at this point in human civilization to believe that a benevolent being that created all that is, needs blood sacrifice for any reason. It sounds archaic and primitive.

It is archaic and primitive. You were archaic and primitive as a newborn, before you developed into a two year old, an adolescent and then an adult. You are not the same Gary as you were fifty years ago. God is an idea which has changed through time and circumstances.

Blood sacrifice to propitiate a god or goddess was an accepted ritual. Jahweh's preference for mercy was a quite a leap forward.

Your problem with God is the same as everyone else's if they are honest: how does a benevolent being --------- allow evil. My attempt at anthropology does not begin to answer that question. I can only claim that faith and hope are better than despair.

[Immanuel Can]

It matters not that you chose to believe that religion is the source of morality or not...

If that were the case, then secularism would be able to do the same job in respect to morality as religions can; namely, to ground some moral claim, and ideally, a whole bunch of moral claims, so a society can form using it. Let's see if it can.

So what is one moral claim/axiom/duty/demand/commandment/requirement or whatever that secularism places on every secularist? If you can give even one, you've got a case on that.

Even religion gets some things right: " Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

What, according to secularism, makes that rule "good" or "right"?

There is no source of meaning, understanding, or judgment other than through our common biology.

What moral does "biology" instruct to us?

The biological commandment is security/survival and the well-being of the group/gang/pack of society's individuals.

So...extinction is immoral, and survival (or is it security) is supposedly moral? Let's test that.

Please explain how we get this out of biology. I've been told that the biological view is supposed to be "survival of the fittest," not "survival of the moral," but maybe you can fill in this story. It also seems to me that extinctions happen all the time, without implicating any morality at all, and survival happens, but also doesn't implicate morality.

So, for example, the COVID virus survives, and the great auk is extinct. What makes the COVID virus's behaviour moral, and the great auk's not moral?