EVIL!!!!!!!!

[Immanuel Can]

The reality is that there is no justification for morality.

That's a hypothesis. There's no way for you to establish that it's true.

That is true even in Theism.

Clearly not. But that's not the necessary point here. All other ideologies could be without moral legitimations, and Atheism would still not have any.

Is there a reason why God declares His commands or it is just as He wants?

There is a reason...AND it's what He wants. There's no "or" necessary there. It can be both.

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is very natural and typical of a theist...

Ad hominem.

You have not provided any sound counter arguments to my proposals, except keep insisting,
"no ought from is" based on Hume and basic logic.

Heh.

If that were all, it would be more than enough. But as it is, you're just not being honest there.

I have already provided justifications on how the introduction of 'ought' as in the UN case has already work,

It hasn't. Their attempt to impose morality without rationality is just as logically ineffective as yours...but theirs is more hypocritical and more impotently authoritarian then a version you can propose can ever possibly be.

In terms of moral authority, the UN is nothing. It has been nothing, and will remain nothing, because its internal structure is corrupt to the core. Nobody believes that what is does or says is more than the collective manipulations of diverse interest groups warring, lying, strategizing and jostling for position on the "moral high ground," while doing just as they please at home.

I did not insist the UN is THE final example of a moral system.
I merely stated the UN is one example [albeit very crude] of how 'ought' from 'is' when implemented has produced results.

What is practiced in the UN is more toward the political not moral & ethics.

I mentioned what is practiced by the UN is parallel but merely 10% of the Moral and Ethic system I had proposed which is aligned with Kant's model.

Therefore the point is to improve upon the current UN practices towards a more Kantian approach which is a real Moral and Ethics system.
The Kantian moral system is focused on developing the moral individual implanted within the individual's brain and mind thus therefrom to the whole of humanity.

I have already demonstrated how absolute moral rules can be inferred from empirical evidences.

I have stated there is no such thing as absolutely-absolute moral rules in reality. This is a bad idea from theism which is grounded on faith and an illusory God.

The secular system that rely upon secular absolute moral rules will be based on inferential reasoning and are not claimed to be absolutely-absolute.

Note I have demonstrated the UN model [more political than moral] based on 'ought' from 'is' is already producing results [value] and that is merely 10% of the Kantian approach.
Now when humanity has attained 80% of the Kantian approach is its moral and ethic system, the results [value] will be much greater.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Why should I, as an Atheist, not steal? What makes it "wrong," if it is?

Same with being killed.

No human being would want their things [especially assets] to be stolen.
When someone's thing is stolen, DNA wise and naturally [evident] the person will suffer mentally.
If stealing is permitted as a universal rule, then there will be untold sufferings.
Therefore rationally and based on moral wisdom, the maxim,
"No human is permitted to steal whatever belong to another human."

Note again, I am not proposing the above as a fact nor is to be an absolute law imposed by a God threatening hellfire.

What I am proposing is the above maxim,
"No human is permitted to steal whatever belong to another human."
is merely a guide for an effective moral and ethic system.
For any system to be effective it need fixed goals or at is best, absolutes to start with, thus the production of the above secular absolute or maxim.
The expected resultants are less theft and less sufferings.

In addition, secular absolutes as duty are to be ranked to ensure priority, effectiveness and optimality.
An absolute for killing cannot be the same as an absolute for stealing or petty crimes in terms of prioritizing limited resources.

As given the above circumstances, ought [moral absolutes] are possible to be justified from is via continuous improvement to its utmost possibility.

[surreptitious57]

For me if something actually exists then it possesses physicality even if it is not regarded as physical because of the way physical is defined
That is a demarcation problem where all the non physical things are put in a box labelled mental which is just the physical by another name

Reductive physicalism acknowledges the mental but unlike substance dualism does not treat it as entirely separate from the physical
And any apparent distinctions between different states of existence is purely conceptual because no such distinctions exist in reality

[surreptitious57]

What is happening to you is very normal with many people as they get older :
Across the world people have varying levels of belief ( and disbelief ) in God with some nations being more devout than others
But new research reveals one constant across parts of the globe : As people age their belief in God seems to increase

I do not believe in God and will in all probability remain an atheist until the day I die because belief is unfalsifiable
But that does not mean I cannot actually study belief systems in order to become more knowledgeable about them
And so that was essentially the reason for me becoming more interested in Islam and not because I want to become a Muslim
Now I did say it was possible I could become one - and in theory I could - but there is no conscious effort on my part to do so

[Veritas Aequitas]

What is happening to you is very normal with many people as they get older :
Across the world people have varying levels of belief ( and disbelief ) in God with some nations being more devout than others
But new research reveals one constant across parts of the globe : As people age their belief in God seems to increase

I do not believe in God and will in all probability remain an atheist until the day I die because belief is unfalsifiable
But that does not mean I cannot actually study belief systems in order to become more knowledgeable about them
And so that was essentially the reason for me becoming more interested in Islam and not because I want to become a Muslim
Now I did say it was possible I could become one - and in theory I could - but there is no conscious effort on my part to do so

I was also interested in Islam after exposure to the empirical facts of terrible evil and violent acts committed by SOME Muslims.

From my 3 years full time research into the ideology of Islam I noted there is an inherent malignant, evil and evil ethos within Islam that is the root cause of SOME Muslims being influenced, inspired and compelled to kill non-Muslims as a religious duty.

The fact is the majority of Muslims at present are not aware of the inherent malignant, evil and evil compulsion to war against and kill non-Muslims and thus they are acting as very ignorant lay-Muslims and innocent devotees. In other case, the force of being human in some Muslims is greater than Allah's exhortation of warring against non-Muslims.

The danger is when more Muslims are aware, to be assured of a place in paradise with eternal life, they have to comply with the commands of Allah as covenanted, i.e. to war and be anti against non-Muslims. Unfortunately this is a reality especially with the internet that facilitated easier communication.

It is not easy to understand the essence of Islam from reading their scriptures, i.e. the Quran, the Ahadith, the Sira, because the scriptures are so messy and translations from Arabic can erode accuracy.

However one essential necessity to understand Islam is to study the Quran on a Chronological basis to understand its ethos from a pacifist start to the high crescendo of terrible warring on non-Muslim.
The common Quran is arranged generally by size [verses] from large to small chapters.
https://carm.org/chronological-order-of-the-quran

Here is the Quran in reversed Chronological Order and one will note the forward thrust of warring against and anti non-Muslim as evident from the imperialist conquest of lands from Spain to India after the death of the Prophet.
http://qurango.com/download/chronological.pdf

Many Islam apologists insist the warring verses are to be historical only. At best to be applied in self-defence in view of threats to the religion, but the definition of threats [fasadin] is very loosely defined to the extent, cartoons are a justification for killing of non-Muslims. In other cases, disbelieved is also a threat to the religion.

Point is, it is mentioned many times in the Quran, the Quran is supposed to be guidance for all Muslims and Muslims are to comply with the principles and doctrine appropriately.

[bahman]

The reality is that there is no justification for morality.

That's a hypothesis. There's no way for you to establish that it's true.

Morality in human is rooted in his nature which this is completely genetic and it is the result of evolution. Evolution is the result of random mutation that gives rise to more survivability. Therefore there is no justification for morality.

That is true even in Theism.

Clearly not. But that's not the necessary point here. All other ideologies could be without moral legitimations, and Atheism would still not have any.

Clearly yes as you stated below.

There is a reason...AND it's what He wants. There's no "or" necessary there. It can be both.

If morality in Theism is just due to what God wants then there is no reason for that. Therefore there is no justification for morality in Theism too.

By the way what if God wants to deal with you Evil and keep you in Hell forever. Is it justified or not?

[Immanuel Can]

I do not believe in God and will in all probability remain an atheist until the day I die because belief is unfalsifiable...

Not at all. The existence of God is a real-world postulate. It can be examined in the way any other such belief can be examined.

Your criticism is actually derived (whether you know it or not) from Anthony Flew, who later abandoned it to become a Deist, actually. But let me propose a theoretical grounds for falsification of the God hypothesis, just to show why Flew was incorrect in the first place.

Grounds for falsification: Were there no effects of God's activity evident, were there no mathematical arguments for God's existence, and were there no revelation from God (literary or personal) then you would have every reason to consider God's existence as either a) falsified, or b) irrelevant to the cosmos, if even He did exist.

As you can see, the belief's nowhere near unfalsifiable, in theory. However, history and the cosmos would just have to be other than they are. As it is, there are arguments from mathematics, arguments from reason, evidence from design, evidence from history, evidence from revelation, moral arguments, existential experiences...so if the hypothesis cannot be falsified now, it's not on theory but as a result of the sheer number and diversity of arguments in favour of the hypothesis.

"Unfalsifiable"? Heck, no. Unfalsified? Sure.

[Immanuel Can]

Morality in human is rooted in his nature which this is completely genetic and it is the result of evolution. Evolution is the result of random mutation that gives rise to more survivability. Therefore there is no justification for morality.

I agree: were your premises true, then your conclusion would be too.

But your premises remain contentious -- evolutionism is still highly problematic at a theory, even among its proponents (for example, it has no account of the actual origin-point of life, and just leaps into subsequent mutation. Likewise, the fossil record is not nearly what the theory requires it should be. And then there's the problem of "emergent" creatures...and so on), and so is the idea of "random mutation" and "survivability" -- so your conclusion at this point has to be regarded only as the outcome of a weak theory, not a claim of fact.

IF it were true, you'd be right. But it's not demonstrably so.

There is a reason...AND it's what He wants. There's no "or" necessary there. It can be both.

If morality in Theism is just due to what God wants then there is no reason for that.

You didn't hear my answer. Instead, you jumped to what you expected me to say, and reacted to that, instead of to what I did say.

I'm quite familiar with the so-called "Euthyphro Dilemma," thank you; and it's been asked-and-answered many times. But I'll repeat the answer I did give, so you'll see why your reaction was premature.

I said your question assumes a false dichotomy. It's like, "Are you a husband, or are you a man?" The answer is not an either-or. It's a both-and. Your question tries to make it a choice, but it's a "both."

The full answer? What God commands is good, and God commands it because He is good. They are two ways of describing a single fact, not mutually-exclusive claims.

[bahman]

Morality in human is rooted in his nature which this is completely genetic and it is the result of evolution. Evolution is the result of random mutation that gives rise to more survivability. Therefore there is no justification for morality.

I agree: were your premises true, then your conclusion would be too.

But your premises remain contentious -- evolutionism is still highly problematic at a theory, even among its proponents (for example, it has no account of the actual origin-point of life, and just leaps into subsequent mutation. Likewise, the fossil record is not nearly what the theory requires it should be. And then there's the problem of "emergent" creatures...and so on), and so is the idea of "random mutation" and "survivability" -- so your conclusion at this point has to be regarded only as the outcome of a weak theory, not a claim of fact.

IF it were true, you'd be right. But it's not demonstrably so.

If the natural process does not lead to goodness then what it does? God?

There is a reason...AND it's what He wants. There's no "or" necessary there. It can be both.

If morality in Theism is just due to what God wants then there is no reason for that.

You didn't hear my answer. Instead, you jumped to what you expected me to say, and reacted to that, instead of to what I did say.

I'm quite familiar with the so-called "Euthyphro Dilemma," thank you; and it's been asked-and-answered many times. But I'll repeat the answer I did give, so you'll see why your reaction was premature.

I said your question assumes a false dichotomy. It's like, "Are you a husband, or are you a man?" The answer is not an either-or. It's a both-and. Your question tries to make it a choice, but it's a "both."

The full answer? What God commands is good, and God commands it because He is good. They are two ways of describing a single fact, not mutually-exclusive claims.

If it so then God does good because His nature is good. Would you have the same opinion if God was Evil?

Why then you challenge Atheist opinion? If being good is a criterion for morality then atheists can also strive to the same argument.

[Immanuel Can]

If the natural process does not lead to goodness then what it does? God?

Well, what do your wish me to understand by your phrase, "lead to"? Do you mean, "Does it force people to be good?" "Do you mean, "Does it make morality rational?" Do you mean, "Create good in the first place?"

What exactly are you asking there? I'd like to respond, but I can't tell if I have your question right.

If it so then God does good because His nature is good. Would you have the same opinion if God was Evil?

You mean, as in Gnosticism?

The question isn't really coherent. If the Creator of all things were "evil," then there would be no standard by which we could know "evil," and thus we would not be able to ask the question. Even the common objection, "Why would God allow.....?" anticipates an objectively-moral universe. Without an objective standard for "evil," how can one even speak compellingly of "evil"? One simply couldn't. One could only speak of what "is."

Why then you challenge Atheist opinion?

Again, I think it's not clear what your question is here.

If being good is a criterion for morality then atheists can also strive to the dame argument.

And I really can't understand the meaning of this wording. "Dame"? "Strive to"? "Argument"?

You're going to have to help me out here.

[bahman]

If the natural process does not lead to goodness then what it does? God?

Well, what do your wish me to understand by your phrase, "lead to"?

I mean the process of evolution which is the result of natural process and randomness gives us nature which is good.

Do you mean, "Does it force people to be good? " "Do you mean, "Does it make morality rational?

What exactly are you asking there? I'd like to respond, but I can't tell if I have your question right.

No. I think that I should be clear now given the last gomment.

If it so then God does good because His nature is good. Would you have the same opinion if God was Evil?

You mean, as in Gnosticism?

No.

The question isn't really coherent. If the Creator of all things were "evil," then there would be no standard by which we could know "evil," and thus we would not be able to ask the question. Even the common objection, "Why would God allow.....?" anticipates an objectively-moral universe. Without an objective standard for "evil," how can one even speak compellingly of "evil"? One simply couldn't. One could only speak of what "is."

You are saying that "God's nature is good" therefore morality (do good) is justified. I am saying that "God's nature is evil therefore morality (do evil) is justified. I cannot follow your attempt against evil God. You are not providing any argument.

Why then you challenge Atheist opinion?

Again, I think it's not clear what your question is here.

This question was related to the sentence after.

If being good is a criterion for morality then atheists can also strive to the dame argument.

And I really can't understand the meaning of this wording. "Dame"? "Strive to"? "Argument"?

You're going to have to help me out here.

I mean. You are arguing in favor of morality using the premise that "God's nature is good". That is your argument: God's nature is good, this justifies morality (do good). I think that atheists also can use the same argument saying: Our nature is good, this justifies morality (do good).

[Immanuel Can]

If the natural process does not lead to goodness then what it does? God?

Well, what do your wish me to understand by your phrase, "lead to"?

I mean the process of evolution which is the result of natural process and randomness gives us nature which is good.

Do you mean "nature is good," as in the natural world, or "human nature is good"?

Do you mean, "Does it force people to be good? " "Do you mean, "Does it make morality rational?

What exactly are you asking there? I'd like to respond, but I can't tell if I have your question right.

No. I think that I should be clear now given the last gomment.

Not really.

You are saying that "God's nature is good" therefore morality (do good) is justified.

I said God is both good and He commands good.

I am saying that "God's nature is evil

That's like Gnosticism.

therefore morality (do evil) is justified.

In your sentence, you make "morality" and "do evil" the same thing. In ordinary usage, they're not. I really cannot understand your position at all. If I could, I might have something to say.

If being good is a criterion for morality then atheists can also strive to the dame argument.

And I really can't understand the meaning of this wording. "Dame"? "Strive to"? "Argument"?

You're going to have to help me out here.

I mean. You are arguing in favor of morality using the premise that "God's nature is good". That is your argument: God's nature is good, this justifies morality (do good).

No, this is your summary, not mine. See above exactly what I said.

I think that atheists also can use the same argument saying: Our nature is good, this justifies morality (do good).

In your sentence, you're using "good" as an objective property. But you've already said that you think moral values are not objective. And if that's the case, then all your putative "Atheist" is saying is, "Atheists like what Atheists do." And that isn't saying much, because everybody tends to like what they do...if they didn't, they would stop doing that.

So I can't really get a cogent argument out of that sentence either. Can you bottom-line something for me here? I just can't get your point, so far.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The reality is that there is no justification for morality.

That's a hypothesis. There's no way for you to establish that it's true.

Morality in human is rooted in his nature which this is completely genetic and it is the result of evolution. Evolution is the result of random mutation that gives rise to more survivability. Therefore there is no justification for morality.

You have to define what is morality and ethics.

• Morality (from Latin: moralis, lit. 'manner, character, proper behavior') is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper.[1]
  Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.[2]
  Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness".
  -wiki

If Morality is based on the above and how to ground and justify absolute moral rules as guides [only]. As such, we should be able to justify Moral principles from empirical evidences, evolutionary psychology and philosophical reasoning.

Morality can be grounded and justified as in the way I had proposed here.

Note Morality refer to the body of principles only and its grounding. That is the pure aspect of Morality and Ethics.

Meanwhile Ethics is the applied aspect and represent how the body of principles are to be translated into actions within and confined to the individual[s] as a group.

Note Morality and Ethics [albeit inter-connected] are independent of political legal laws that enforce behaviors via threats of penalties and jail time.
That is the same with any religion which threaten believers with perdition and hellfire to enforce behavior, that is not morality & ethics proper.
God: Do as I had commanded, else, your eternal home shall be Hell.

[surreptitious57]

As you can see the belief is nowhere near unfalsifiable in theory . However history and the cosmos would just have to be other than they are
As it is there are arguments from mathematics - arguments from reason - evidence from design - evidence from history - evidence from revelation moral arguments - existential experiences .. so if the hypothesis cannot be falsified now it is not on theory but as a result of the sheer number and diversity of arguments in favour of the hypothesis

Arguments from mathematics and reason are non empirical - Evidence from design and history are begging the question
Evidence from revelation and existential experiences cannot be tested - Moral arguments are begging the question

Belief by its very nature cannot be falsified because it is the acceptance of a proposition that is taken to be true
but for which there is insufficient / zero evidence to support it [ this applies to all belief not just belief in God ]

God is taken to be real so empirical evidence is what is required to demonstrate his existence
Logical arguments and personal testimonies cannot do this and so they can be easily discarded

In truth there are only three valid statements that can be made about God :

I do not believe that God exists but I cannot demonstrate this
I believe that God exists but I cannot demonstrate this
I do not know whether or not God exists