How to easily defeat any argument for God

[The Grand Nudger]

That’s the thing, it isn’t. The observation made by descriptive moral relativism is that all members of a culture will share broad tracts of moral agreement and underpinning.

The religious and the irreligious alike, in a given society , think that x is right or wrong for the same reasons. Their disagreement arises when they do not see those same reasons they agree on in a given scenario.

This particular chuckleheads problem is simple. It’s nit that he doesn’t get secular morality, it’s that he needs to believe his is different.

Thus, he’s spent pages and pages across the board arguing against the first definition of teleology, but can’t affirm the second....while simultaneously demanding that the majority of people view morality through s teleological lens.

[Acrobat]

I’ll never understand why it’s so difficult for theists to comprehend secular morality.

It doesn’t seem that even atheists understand secular morality, we have a variety of conflicting views subjectivism, moral nihilism, emotivism, moral realism.

We have Vulcans who believes in a platonic conception of Good, we have atheist philosophers like Nietzsche, Juergen Habermas, Zizek, John Gray etc.. who view liberal western conceptions of morality to be a product of the judeo-Christian tradition etc...

So which secular morality are us theists suppose to be comprehending? Does comprehending requiring acceptance of one view over the other as true? Or could we reject all of them.

---

The religious and the irreligious alike, in a given society , think that x is right or wrong for the same reasons.

Do they though?

I view x is right and wrong as normative statements, you indicate in your moral views, they’re descriptive statements.

You also claim right and wrong are matters of harm, where I ascribe to a view more common to virtue ethics, that morality is more a matter of moral character, than actions of their consequences

[The Grand Nudger]

Lol, you’re going to keep falling on your face no matter what, huh. I also think that morality is an issue of character. That’s a very common view.

You’re simply not going to find a meaningful difference in moral structure between us unless you find the strength of character to say “because god”.......

.......and so long as you are describing your moral system without any need of reference to gods, it’s a secular moral system.

Realism......secular.
Normatives.......secular
Virtue ethics.....secular.

[Acrobat]

Lol, you’re going to keep falling on your face no matter what, huh. I also think that morality is an issue of character. That’s a very common view.

You’re simply not going to find a meaningful difference in moral structure between us unless you find the strength of character to say “because god”.......

.......and so long as you are describing your moral system without any need of reference to gods, it’s a secular moral system.

Realism......secular.
Normatives.......secular
Virtue ethics.....secular.

Yes, as I said no moral system, including the one I hold requires any reference to a sky wizard who points his finger.

[The Grand Nudger]

No secular position requires it. There are, ofc, moral systems that hinge on divinity.

Since yours isn’t one of them, since you understand how your own morality doesn’t need a god.....you really shouldn’t have any trouble understanding how others don’t, either.

[Acrobat]

No secular position requires it. There are, ofc, moral systems that hinge on divinity.

Since yours isn’t one of them, since you understand how your own morality doesn’t need a god.....you really shouldn’t have any trouble understanding how others don’t, either.

My moral system is dependent on teleology, no sky wizard is required.

Secular morality that attempts to expunge any teleological assumption tends to come, in this forum at least, in two stripes

1. Like yours were, good and bad are merely descriptive statements about reality.
2. Good are bad are expressions of our personal or collective likes and dislikes

[The Grand Nudger]

Here we are again. Unless you mean, by teleology, the design and purpose of a god......

......then your morality is no different than the morality of the majority of Americans, as you’ve claimed- which would include secular moral realists ( or pseudo realists for the error theorists reading, )....

To whit - the explanation of a phenomena by reference to its purpose rather than its origin.

---

Subjectivist hedonism is teleological in the non god related sense. Let that sink in.

Subjective......hedonism.

Why? Because they assert that the explanation of moral systems and moral values lies in how they serve the purpose of maximizing pleasure.

[Alan V]

I’ll never understand why it’s so difficult for theists to comprehend secular morality.

I'm guessing because they don't want to.

[Abaddon_ire]

I’ll never understand why it’s so difficult for theists to comprehend secular morality.

I'm guessing because they don't want to.

I'm guessing that you are correct.

[LadyForCamus]

I’ll never understand why it’s so difficult for theists to comprehend secular morality.

It doesn’t seem that even atheists understand secular morality, we have a variety of conflicting views subjectivism, moral nihilism, emotivism, moral realism.

And, yet somehow I manage. Why do you need a god to tell you it’s wrong to rape and kill people? That’s kind of messed up, dude. I mean, your god (if you’re Christian) doesn’t even tell you not to rape.