Deconversion and some doubts

[Acrobat]

Can you get an ought from an is?

Not really, the ought is derived from a goal, a telos.

If I subscribe to some goal such as I ought not harm others. Then if x is harmful to others, it can be said that I ought not do x, as a result.

But if I had no such goal, there’s no ought to derive from x is harmful to others. It’s not based on x being harmful to others, that I ought not to do x, it’s based on the goal being not to harm others.

The questions I’m asking are in relationship to the nature of these goals/rules.

When pushed, most atheist I’ve spoken to indicate as the previous poster did, that such goals/rules are rooted in unwritten social/culture agreements, we make with others in our society. Implying that it requires our agreement to be bound by them, and that such oughts are not applicable to those who don’t. It’s not clear to me if you agree with this view?

When it comes to theism, many atheist seem to be under the impression, that theists believe that morality is derived from their holy books. That absent of whatever rules are listed in their scripture they nor anyone else could know right or wrong.

This is not true, very few theist hold to such a view, in fact it’s not even the view of the biblical writers.

Theist, including Plato, Aristotle, etc believe in a transcendent moral order.
The biblical writers believed in a moral law written with out hearts, which our conscience bears witness to, even for gentiles, and non-christians who have no scripture.

Theistic view are like what the Buddhist scholar Bodhi indicates here: “morality and ethical values are not mere decorative frills of personal opinion, not subjective superstructure, but intrinsic laws of the cosmos built into the heart of reality."

The theistic view is built on the view of reality as being a part of a teleological order, resembling a novel or story, and morality is ultimately built on this.

So when you appeal to folks like Plato in defense of your moral view, it’s a bit odd. I believe you’ve expressed some pantheistic leanings previously, an affinity for folks like Spinoza, so it is possible you do subscribe to a teleological view of reality, but I hope you can be clear here, so that we don’t talk past each other