Defending Pantheism

[The Grand Nudger]

One of the main reasons I sympathize with this way of thinking is that the religious have done the same thing with morality. They say things like: "How can you have a sense of right and wrong without there being a cosmic being who declares some things right and other things wrong." Obviously, theists are trying to claim a monopoly on moral objectivity. And I wonder if they might not have done the same thing with concepts like "holy" or "numinous."

He already explained this, in the OP, and you hilariously stumbled right into it...because you don't comprehend the things you read. Listen more, invent less. He isn't sympathetic to the viewpoint because he thinks that morality needs some god or evades a natural account, he's sympathetic because he thinks that people who do make those assertions have bullshitted themselves into a sense of ownership on the issue. People such as yourself.

---

If you spent as much time listening to atheists as you do inventing shit to bicker about with atheists, you'd realize that the majority of us experience the sense of the numinous, which is...l-o-l, a natural fact of human experience.  

I don't know if the majority of atheists experience the numinous, unless there's some survey out and about that confirms this. I usually find one or two. When it comes to describing or defining what numinous, this seems to be primarily have been done so by religious folks:

Search the boards, you'll find a thread entirely devoted to it.  Religious folks primarly defined just about everything, part of their history of privilege, but that doesn;t mean that they, then, own those experiences.  

But rather something more profound than that, as if the wind is being drawn out of you.

Yep.  Or drawn in, in my case.

In -any- objective moral view, an ought is derived from what is against some evaluative principle.  It doesn't matter if we approach it from pantheism, atheism, theism, what have you.  That's what objectivity means in the moral context.  

No, you're putting the cart before the horse, the evaluative principle is derived from the ought. It's because I hold that I ought not do harm, that x cause harm, has any moral meaning to me. Absent of that is no more of moral statement, that x is blue.

In -any- objective morality, the ought is derived from the is set against an evaluative principle.  If that;s not the kind of moral reasoning that you're referring to, you simply aren't referring to an objective morality, despite what you may have been lead to believe by those folks who defined things for their convenience, lol. If some moral statement does not make accurate reference to some thing that -is-....a fact, you see, that's how facts work, it's not objective. Full stop. There's literally no end to the non-objective oughts that can be derived from non-facts...but who cares?

Come up with any true moral statement that wouldn't be true in the absence of a god, yet, worked out why that thought experiment was fucked, yet?