I humbly conjecture that some of us simply lack the god sense and are atheists while others possess it and are theists.
Such as what? Killing innocents? Rape? The bible seems inconsistent on things like this.
1 Like
Assertion without argument or evidence. Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
edit:
Re: Morality grounded in the human condition (i.e. nature) rather than “faith” … or authority or tradition or custom or preference, etc.
1 Like
But how do you answer the Euthyphro question? Is a certain behavior good because God says so, or does God say so because it is good? You appear to be choosing the first option; I’m sure you can see the difficulties in wait, or if not, Socrates did!
2 Likes
@Mijin1
Yes, we’ll need to consult a biblical scholar for that.
@180Proof Doesn’t that lead to a non-objective morality? Aren’t we notoriously unreliable?
@Jay There are known solutions to Euthyphro. For example that God = Goodness. I’m however not satisfied with that.
To all above:
There are 2 popular moral theories - utilitarianism and deontological ethics - that are Godless but they’re dissonant with each other and make dubious recommendations.
Afaik, the human condition (i.e. our nature … every hunan has the same species-defects which via abuse or neglect render degrees of dysfunction (harm)) is a subject-invariant fact (i.e. objective).
1 Like
That’s a fine point. Doesn’t it beg the question though? I suppose I should ask, what is the human objective morality? I gave an example of the problem in one of my preceding posts. An ethical dispute in a village - what is the proper course of action? The disputants obviously haven’t been able to tell the difference between right and wrong as normally each would claim to be right. They go to the village chief and ask him to be the arbiter. The village chief, if he’s in any way familiar with the way things are done in the modern world, would form a committee. It’s just kicking the can down the road to me.
Good, I don’t think you should be. Is the equals sign meant to indicate substitutional equivalence? If not, then what?
The same question bothers me. Substitutional equivalence is one thing. Equality is another. Which do you suppose is apropos?
The way I formulate the Euthyphro dilemma is God is either undesirable or unnecessary.
Godless morality also exists in the form of Buddhism and Jainism. However, each has its own problems, one of which is lack of clarity.
This is a juridical or political dispute, imo, not itself “ethical”; the third-party (“village chief’s”) arbitration may be informed by (his) moral judgment and this might or might not be objective (i.e. decrease (“right”) or increases (“wrong”) foreseeable / avoidable harm/s).
Buddhists and Jains don’t seem to find that their god-free moralities “lack clarity” … 
Another munchable morsel.
Yes, moral judgment and for the village chief this might not be objective. I don’t know what human moral objectivity is. 
Buddhism and Jainism, if they did provide a sound moral theory, would’ve been picked up by a moral philosopher’s radar.
Not sure what to say here. If “equality” is something different from substitutional equivalence, I think it’s on you to say what it is, or might be. Only then could either of us have an opinion as to which version is apropos to the Euthyphro problem.
Well, I have to admit, copy-pasted it from somewhere else 
You seem to have studied it in more detail. God = Goodness should’ve rung some bells. 
I guess I need to sum up.
Atheistic moral theories
- Utilitarianism
- Deontological ethics
- Jainism
- Buddhism
None are popular globally or among serious moral philosophers.
On the other hand Christianity is a world leader in religion. Christian ethics is grounded in God.
The Euthyphro dilemma is a thorn in the side of God-based ethics. I don’t know how to solve the dilemma but God = Goodness seems to satisfy some.
Personally, ethics can’t come from nature (re. G. E. Moore and Hume’s is-ought gap).
By the way, objective morality means a rock-solid foundation, which is hard to describe.
Oxymoronic strawman.
Atheism does not entail any “moral theories”.
E.g. Epicurus and Spinoza disagree. John Dewey and Philippa Foot also disagree. Et al.
You mean to say atheists have no morality except for theistic ones? Plus, I don’t recall God being invoked in utilitarianism. Perhaps deontological ethics rests on God’s shoulders.
None of them (Epicurus, Foote, Spinoza) have gained wide currency. They remain limited to small groups.
I mean to say: atheism is compatible with any “moral theory” (including a “god-based morality”).
Also, your appeal to popularity, Scorpion, is as fallacious as it is irrelevant. Not so long ago ‘the flat Earth’ was very popular. 
To accept a God-based morality one has to believe in God. 
I’m not appealing to authority and it’s ok to do so if the appeal is made in good faith. Your flat-earth strawman is sad.