No, that's the point. Secular humanism isn't a set of moral rules (like the Ten Commandments) but a general outlook/worldview (like the Nicene Creed). More specifically, one can be a Secular Humanist and a moral relativist (say, like Stephen Fry) or a Secular Humanist and a utilitarian (like Sam Harris) etc etc. Criticizing the Secular Humanist manifesto for not being more like the Ten Commandments is comparing apples and oranges. Hope this clarifies.

A valid point, which you should have just said in the first place. By ignoring the moral rules within Christianity you just confused the discussion. It looked like you were trying to equate the two somehow.

But your point is consistent with what I said. Secular humanism is so vague that you can justify anything within its framework. In fact, in an attempt to get acceptance it just becomes vaguer to avoid disagreement. Ultimately it has no value as a moral compass. So the disappearance of Christianity or Islam or other bases of morality is replaced by nothing, which takes me back to my original point.

I do not think we actually disagree except that you think that society will be better without religious morality and I think that you have never seen a society without the remnants of religious morality so you really have no idea what you will get.

Yeah I probably should have got straight to the point.

It's not supposed to be a moral compass, so this paragraph makes zero sense. I thought you had acknowledged this point?

You may think that, but I think there is simply no such thing as "religious morality". Religion is a man-made invention and it's moral guidelines are just secular morals from the Bronze Age. Again, this is atheism 101 and you should be approaching Secular Humanism from within that viewpoint, if you wish to attack it in the specific manner you seem to be choosing. What you are doing is analogous to me saying "Christian morals have nothing to offer a Secular Humanist because several of the Ten Commandments presuppose a God, and there is no such thing."

But as I have stressed, Secular Humanism is not a moral code, but does suggest a broad method for answering moral questions. "Think about it" vs "Pray about it" if one wanted to be pithy.

humans don't get morality from religion, religion gets morality from humans. this should be obvious to everyone and i don't know why it's not.

also, while christianity claims to contain absolute moral values, isn't it really just as relativistic as secular morality?

for example, the bible commands christians to stone people to death for all kinds of petty things: breaking the sabbath, blasphemy, not being a virgin on your wedding night, children for disobeying their parents, etc...99.9% of modern day christians would find these commands abhorrent and they justify their existence in the bible with some variation on, "those commands were necessary in those times, in modern times they are not necessary."

how is that not moral relativism?

i really don't understand why moral relativism is seen in a negative light by christians. living under an absolute morality, especially one given by an abrahamic holy book, would be miserable.

The bold is the issue. As a theist I do not accept that religion is fundamentally man-made. Sure your arguments may be atheism 101, but I am not an atheist.

The bold again is an atheist point of view. A theist views religion as a human expression of God's fundamental inspiration.

The Bible does express some pretty harsh treatment, but Christianity is primarily based on the teaching of Jesus. He tended to stop stonings, as I recall.

ok, can you then explain why most theists reject the ghastly parts of the bible?

Matthew 5:17-18

can you please explain how thinking it's immoral to stone people for petty crimes is not moral relativism?

if jesus actually thought the old testament no longer need to be followed (he didn't), how is that not moral relativism?

I don't think you're following what I'm saying. Let me try again with these two points:

"So the disappearance of Christianity or Islam or other bases of morality is replaced by nothing, which takes me back to my original point."

We've established that Secular Humanism isn't supposed to a moral compass so how does this take you back to your original point? Furthermore, why is religious morality "replaced with nothing"? Why can't it be replaced with utilitarianism, or virtue ethics, or ethical naturalism or whatever?

"I do not think we actually disagree except that you think that society will be better without religious morality and I think that you have never seen a society without the remnants of religious morality so you really have no idea what you will get."

The reason I brought up atheism 101 is that I thought you were trying to dissuade me from Secular Humanism from inside my own perspective. Now it seems that your quote is essentially just a frowny face and a wagging finger, so I won't pursue this particular line of conversation any longer.

It's not moral relativism because all of those things are still considered sins.

If you lead a small community that is surrounded by hordes of larger, more-powerful enemy states, it probably would be best to maintain strict controls on the people. This is not for your sake, but for their sake. You certainly cannot afford to have division and discord, or you will fall quickly. You cannot afford to have troublemakers or citizens that are not contributing when just about everybody must be war-ready and capable of defense and offense on a moment's notice.

Think of the army, or the marines. While everybody else is on program, one soldier deserts and is out in the woods collecting sticks. That guy will almost certainly be severely reprimanded if not confined in solitary or worse.

From our modern, western, lazy-boy perspective, these controls look immoral. Tell that to general who lost five men because a soldier fell asleep on duty.

but you're not carrying out the punishment that god commanded. you moral relativist.

No. The punishments have been satisfied by death.

Ever hear of Jesus Christ?

Well, we start with:

Thou shalt not kill.

That seems pretty clear.

So your point must be that there are some passages in the Bible that appear to conflict with that directive. I have to agree.

But then enter Jesus, who acts to stop stonings as immoral. Also, he cites Love God, Love neighbor as the single command to follow.

All said, it seems clear that not killing is the sound path. I accept that as fundamental. It does not seem relativism at all. What smacks of relativism is trying to find exceptions for adulterers or homosexuals or tax collecters or whatever. I reject all of that.

i've heard of him. according to Matthew 5:17-18, he said that until the earth disappears, the old testament must be followed.

but i'll give you the same question i gave to RLK. if jesus actually said that the old testament commands don't matter anymore (though, he didn't), how is that not moral relativism?

That is essentially my original point. It seemed that asd was disagreeing so my subsequent arguments were in that direction


Maybe it can, but I do not know what that morality would look like. And there is no indication that any of those are taking the place of Christianity as a basis.


No, I was not trying to do that.

.

I do not think it was that either, but fine.

That's not exactly what it says there. The law has never passed away, and the wages of sin is death, as ever. But Christ fulfilled the law, and paid the wages.

Christ also never said that the OT commandments don't matter. If you read the gospels, Christ laid great importance on the ten commandments, and whenever "doing good" or 'entering the kingdom of God' was brought up, he quoted from them.

The single commandment of "Love God, Love neighbor" seems like incredibly loaded language. I'm assuming, for instance, that you would use the "Love God" bit against homosexuals.

I take my moral values from religion and i make them up and get them form TV. I dont necessarily disagree and you could add a few more things to the list.


But i dont think Cwocwoc view is as nuanced. I think he means to shift where atheist values come from depending on what best suits his argument at the exclusion of the others, depending.


When it comes to religion getting its morals in some kind of some vacuum. I dont buy it. I think it was influenced form previous moral views like dont hit me in the face, its bad. And since i dont think religion has been around forever some of that influence came form the non religious. Just guessing but i think its a good one.

even though matthew 5:17 indicates the opposite is true, i'll play along and pretend that jesus said the old testament no longer needs to be followed.

how is that not moral relativism? do you know the definition of moral relativism?

so we're on the same page, here's the definition i'm using:

the law was X, and then it became Y due to a cultural change. is this not the definition of moral relativism?

of course it is.

but, of course, you have to pretend it says something that it doesn't to avoid the grim fact that you disagree with the morality that the bible presents.

I do not follow.

Meaning the punishments were relative to Jesus fulling the law and no longer necessary. The punishments changed.

You stated that Jesus came along and said that the single command to follow is "Love God, Love neighbor". How are you parsing this to mean something like "homosexuality is wrong"?

I never said I could.

As far as I could tell, "Love God, love neighbor" contains a command to treat homosexuals with compassion. I do not think you can find a post by me that says otherwise.

So, to be clear, is homosexuality morally acceptable?

I do not think people choose to be homosexual any more than they chose to be black or diabetic or short. I say that because I am heterosexual and cannot imagine choosing to be a homosexual any easier than I could choose to be a bird.

Thus, I would think that homosexuality is not a moral issue.