A Belief-System for the Moral Agnostic (Flexible Atheist)

docphin5

Well-known member
I posit the following belief-system for the moral agnostic (or flexible atheist) (1) because it holds the most basic elements of a belief-system touching on our origins backed up by science and reason. This is meant to be a rough sketch or skeletal framework for a belief-system for who you and I are, where we came from, and why we exist at all. If you hold these things to be reasonably true then you would not need to be an atheist anymore for you would hold a belief-system that explains who you are in the present relative to our past and to our eternal future.

I purposely strained out any terms, religious jargon, or religious names carried by modern religions. This is the essence of a belief-system minus all its outward forms, dogmas, and doctrines. A few assumptions and hypothesis are provided for consideration and IMO are within reason or at least plausible.

Hypothesis based on reason and science:
I That there is an infinite, undefined, nonexistence (for lack of a better word), source of all things, to include all knowledge and all power, all good and all bad in existence, but not necessarily an absolute "bad" as in an absolute duality (see "V." below) but a relative "bad".​
II The singularity before the Big Bang was an intelligent free-will due to the association of intelligence with complexity in our universe. The singularity, of course, being the most complex, ordered, thing known to man would have been an extremely intelligent will.​
III the Big Bang resulted in a lifeless universe in a chaotic state containing potentialities (seeds) for virtuous souls at a later time.​
IV. The "Moral Argument and Cosmological Argument for the existence of our Diving Origin" suggest that the Divine Origin, aka, "Singularity" is the source of all matter, souls, and moral consciousness (virtues).​
V. The Bad Power (Chaos Power) was not always chaotic and may in fact have been regulated by a virtuous will before the Big Bang. The point being that existence itself is not necessarily absolute "Bad" but only relatively Bad or imperfect in its present state.​
VI. The present state of the universe could plausibly return to its pristine state at a future time (not shown here). One theory about the future of our universe is a Big Crunch where all things return to a Singularity again and plausibly our virtuous souls will be produced again, --I repeat "again", highlighting the fact that the universe has demonstrated that it is capable of producing billions of virtuous souls once already.​


Pre-existent Good One ♾️​
|​
Virtuous Will (Female Wisdom) ++ (union) "Singularity" (Male Power); ♀️++♂️​
"BIG BANG"​
Good Power (Potential Virtuous Souls) 🍇
⬅️ ↔️ ➡️​
Bad Power (Chaos Power) 🔥🌎
Good Power transmuted to unchallenged truth and wisdom"Singularity" transmuted to matter/flesh
⬇️​
⬇️​
Moral Argument for the Existence of Good PowerCosmological Argument for Bad Power
➡️​
Virtuous Will + (union) Human Flesh 👫🍇🌎​
⬅️

1- Some atheists claim that they would like to believe in a divine origin if sufficient information were given. Whereas, a "true" atheist denies the existence of any divine origin. This OP is for the former atheists to consider.
 
Last edited:

Furion

Well-known member
I commend the use of "flexible atheist", it's a new one to me.

However a "moral agnostic" has a certain flavor of cluelessness regarding morality.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
I commend the use of "flexible atheist", it's a new one to me.

However a "moral agnostic" has a certain flavor of cluelessness regarding morality.
I think a moral consciousness is an essential component of any belief system so I presume the agnostic or flexible atheist would value virtuous living to some degree if not absolutely. Some claim that they do.
 

Furion

Well-known member
I think a moral consciousness is an essential component of any belief system so I presume the agnostic or flexible atheist would value virtuous living to some degree if not absolutely. Some claim that they do.
That presumption has spawned millions of arguments.

I think what you'll find are people doing exactly that, claiming "virtuous" living while simultaneously claiming morality is subjective, up to the individual.

So basically they are good christians without the whole God thang.

I understand the desire for that position, it just stands no chance of being defended coherently.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
That presumption has spawned millions of arguments.

I think what you'll find are people doing exactly that, claiming "virtuous" living while simultaneously claiming morality is subjective, up to the individual.
there is a lot more “morality” that is agreed upon than what is disagreed upon. Notice that I did not claim everyone has reached the ideal but only is progressing towards it in degrees. Some of it must be worked out for us through reason and wisdom. Of course, some are either unwilling or unable to work out everything we should aspire to be.
So basically they are good christians without the whole God thang.
That is a misnomer. Any virtue found in any human is an aspect of the Good Power “arising” in the human consciousness. What you are doing is condemning those who do not conform or adopt YOUR form of religion, dogma, and doctrines. Whereas, I am extracting the essence of a belief-system universal in application without any specified form that brings into view a divine origin of all things, —based on reason and science, I might add.
I understand the desire for that position, it just stands no chance of being defended coherently.
On the contrary, it is completely coherent.
 
Last edited:

Furion

Well-known member
there is a lot more “morality” that is agreed upon than what is disagreed upon.
The point sailed over your head.
Notice that I did not claim everyone has reached the ideal but only is progressing towards it in degrees. Some of it must be worked out for us through reason and wisdom. Of course, some are either unwilling or unable to work out everything we should aspire to be.

That is a misnomer. Any virtue found in any human is an aspect of the Good Power “arising” in the human consciousness. What you are doing is condemning those who do not conform or adopt YOUR form of religion, dogma, and doctrines. Whereas, I am extracting the essence of a belief-system universal in application without any specified form that brings into view a divine origin of all things, —based on reason and science, I might add.

On the contrary, it is completely coherent.

You'll have to figure out why any atheist has concluded any morality at all.

Once you do that you can try to figure out what the bestest morality of all actually is...subjectively of course.

Then we can play who is the mostest moral of all.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
To any atheist: Who might you think wrote the following? The answer is at the bottom.

The knowledge of sin is the beginning of salvation.​

He went on to add,

”For he who does not know that he has sinned does not desire correction; you must discover yourself in the wrong before you can reform yourself.​
Do you think that the man has any thought of mending his ways who counts over his vices as if they were virtues? Therefore, as far as possible, prove yourself guilty, hunt up charges against yourself; play the part, first of accuser, then of judge, last of intercessor.”​
Answer: (82rettellaroM)aceneSrehposolihpnitaLehT
 

docphin5

Well-known member
Who also wrote about Wisdom the following,

”no man can live a happy life, or even a supportable life, without the study of Wisdom;…​

It moulds and constructs the soul; it orders our life, guides our conduct, shows us what we should do and what we should leave undone; it sits at the helm and directs our course as we waver amid uncertainties. Without it, no one can live fearlessly or in peace of mind…​

She will encourage us to obey God cheerfully, but Fortune defiantly; she will teach us to follow God and endure Chance.”​

Answer: (61rettellaroM)aceneS
 

docphin5

Well-known member
The previous two posts were to demonstrate how a lover of wisdom (philo-sophy) can perceive divinity, salvation, wisdom, etc., outside of any particular form of religion. The same philosopher identifies that Wisdom or Good Power in us as “god”. If he perceived the universe as described in the OP (1) then it makes sense.
“We do not need to uplift our hands towards heaven, or to beg the keeper of a temple to let us approach his idol's ear, as if in this way our prayers were more likely to be heard. God is near you, he is with you, he is within you.

I mean, Lucilius: a holy spirit indwells within us, one who marks our good and bad deeds, and is our guardian. As we treat this spirit, so are we treated by it. Indeed, no man can be good without the help of God. Can one rise superior to fortune unless God helps him to rise? He it is that gives noble and upright counsel. In each good man A god doth dwell, but what god know we not.”​
(Seneca, Moral Letter 41)​
He says elsewhere that,

“God's place in the universe corresponds to the soul's relation to man. World-matter corresponds to our mortal body; therefore let the lower serve the higher.​
(Seneca, Moral Letter 65)​
IOW, let the mortal body or matter serve the moral consciousness of man or put another way, let God arise in man.​
Here is an interesting link on Seneca, FYI.​
———-​
1) I think he does perceive the universe as a place of majesty and wonder.​
“For this body of ours is a weight upon the soul and its penance; as the load presses down the soul is crushed and is in bondage, unless philosophy has come to its assistance and has bid it take fresh courage by contemplating the universe, and has turned it from things earthly to things divine. There it has its liberty, there it can roam abroad; meantime it escapes the custody in which it is bound, and renews its life in heaven.” (Ibid)​
 
Last edited:

Tiburon

Well-known member
That presumption has spawned millions of arguments.

I think what you'll find are people doing exactly that, claiming "virtuous" living while simultaneously claiming morality is subjective, up to the individual.

So basically they are good christians without the whole God thang.
Are they actually living virtuously or just claiming to?
Basically they are good people without the whole God thang.
Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on being moral.

If morality were a product of society as a whole, rather than the individual, would that make it subjective or objective?
 

Furion

Well-known member
Are they actually living virtuously or just claiming to?
Basically they are good people without the whole God thang.
Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on being moral.
Well sure, everyone thinks they are a good person.
If morality were a product of society as a whole, rather than the individual, would that make it subjective or objective?
It's your thingies, you tell me.

Would everyone saying gay is bad persuade you? Didn't think so.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
@docphin5

How do you define "moral agnostic" and "flexible atheist?" I've never heard those terms before.
I only qualified agnostic with “moral“ because presumably somebody who does not know if divinity exists but values morality may be interested in the OP’s hypothesis.

My use of “flexible atheist” is my way of respecting those atheists who claim to be open to changing their position, ie., flexible, versus the militant atheist who denies divinity under any circumstances.
 

Tiburon

Well-known member
Well sure, everyone thinks they are a good person.
I'm not talking about what they think I'm talking about their actions.
Are they claiming to live "virtuous" lives but acting contrary to that or are they actually acting in a way that would be deemed virtuous?
It's your thingies, you tell me.
I don't know, that's why I'm asking.

Would everyone saying gay is bad persuade you? Didn't think so.
Absolutely everyone saying gay is bad? Even gay people?
Persuaded assumes I don't also think that way.
 

Furion

Well-known member
I'm not talking about what they think I'm talking about their actions.
So you believe people think it with no evidence?
Are they claiming to live "virtuous" lives but acting contrary to that or are they actually acting in a way that would be deemed virtuous?
Explain what "virtuous" means.

What virtues has the universe bestowed upon you?

Where is your evidence this virtue is given by the universe?
I don't know, that's why I'm asking.
So you don't know why you believe as you do?

Ok, you don't have any objective evidence, and you can't tell me why your virtues are better than another's, and you have no evidence for your opinion either.
Absolutely everyone saying gay is bad? Even gay people?
Persuaded assumes I don't also think that way.
So is this a fleece for both views?

Are you rhetorically afraid to answer the question?

If 6.99 billion people think it's bad, and 0.01 say it's good, what do you think?

Does this serve up the question in such a way that you have joy joy feelings to answer?
 

docphin5

Well-known member
I'm not talking about what they think I'm talking about their actions.
Are they claiming to live "virtuous" lives but acting contrary to that or are they actually acting in a way that would be deemed virtuous?

I don't know, that's why I'm asking.
I think the debate over subjective versus objective morality sometimes gets confounded in arguments over semantics. For example, If people agree on something isn’t that subjective? If what they agree upon changes over time, isn’t that subjective? Yes, sometimes that is true, but in contrast there are some moral codes we can all agree upon at all times everywhere in the universe, for example, murder. It is not a matter of opinion either.

It is a fact of the universe that society, civilization would break down to barbarism, pain, and suffering, if everyone chose to murder anyone anytime they felt the impulse or desire or need. This is not merely subjective but a fact of life that all rational humans agree upon. The fact we all agree on it does not preclude it also being objectively true, IOW, an objective morale code in this case. Again, a moral code that is true whether humans live by it or not. If we all chose to ignore this universal moral code then we would all suffer the consequences: barbarism, suffering, and pain, which all go against our physical nature.

Absolutely everyone saying gay is bad? Even gay people?
Persuaded assumes I don't also think that way.
Homosexuality is a complex issue because like heterosexuality can be either good or bad depending upon how it is regulated. It is neither always bad nor always good. I mean what practical difference is there between homosexual or heterosexual behavior for two partners who remain partners for life other than being unable to produce children of their own? I cannot think of any.
 
Last edited:

Furion

Well-known member
I think the debate over subjective versus objective morality sometimes gets confounded in arguments over semantics.

Not really.

Semantics are brought in when someone claims, like you do, that some particular morality is objective.

That's great, now provide empirical evidence for it.

Appealing to everyone thinking it wrong is just emotion.
 

Tiburon

Well-known member
So you believe people think it with no evidence?
People think a lot of things with no evidence.

Explain what "virtuous" means.
As far as I know it is having high moral standards.
Which takes us back to defining what moral is.
As you were the one who raised it, what is your understanding of virtuous?

What virtues has the universe bestowed upon you?

Where is your evidence this virtue is given by the universe?
Who claimed that virtue is bestowed by the universe? Or do you just mean as the result of nature as opposed to being bestowed by god?

So you don't know why you believe as you do?
I believe morals are a product of human nature based upon common ideas of how we wish to be treated.
Does that make them objective or subjective?

Ok, you don't have any objective evidence, and you can't tell me why your virtues are better than another's, and you have no evidence for your opinion either.
I don't know that my virtues are better than another's. As you said, everyone thinks they are virtuous. Nor have I any "objective" evidence.
Do you have any objective evidence that supports your desire not to be robbed or murdered? Or is it just your opinion that it would not be a good thing?

So is this a fleece for both views?
I don't know what that means.

If 6.99 billion people think it's bad, and 0.01 say it's good, what do you think?

Does this serve up the question in such a way that you have joy joy feelings to answer?
If we are talking about being gay I'd say it's fine as I see no reason to oppose it.
But it comes back to how do we evaluate the goodness or badness of some action or behaviour.
 

Furion

Well-known member
People think a lot of things with no evidence.


As far as I know it is having high moral standards.
Which takes us back to defining what moral is.
As you were the one who raised it, what is your understanding of virtuous?


Who claimed that virtue is bestowed by the universe? Or do you just mean as the result of nature as opposed to being bestowed by god?


I believe morals are a product of human nature based upon common ideas of how we wish to be treated.
Does that make them objective or subjective?


I don't know that my virtues are better than another's. As you said, everyone thinks they are virtuous. Nor have I any "objective" evidence.
Do you have any objective evidence that supports your desire not to be robbed or murdered? Or is it just your opinion that it would not be a good thing?


I don't know what that means.


If we are talking about being gay I'd say it's fine as I see no reason to oppose it.
But it comes back to how do we evaluate the goodness or badness of some action or behaviour.
You don't need to answer questions, that's fine. I just give you opportunity is all.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
Did Jewish-Christians idolize Paul as a prophet of God to the point of mythicizing him in the Gospel stories as a god on earth, namely, Jesus?

It was not uncommon for different nations of Hellenistic times to identify specific humans on earth endowed with aspects of divinity manifest as reason, knowledge, or wisdom.

The Greeks had their seven Sages, Buddhism had their seven Buddas of Antiquity, and the Jews had their hebdomad of prophets. In all cases the humans were considered endowed with supra mundane gifts to see the world as it really is or as a god would see it. In all cases virtues were the path to achieve the ideal state.

IOW, whoever the ideal human was in classical times they were characterized as a god-like being in some way for others to emulate or look up to respective to the nation they belonged too, Greek, Jew, or Indian.

The point is that what’s actually important with each nation is the progression of the soul towards the ideal virtuous human, rather than the outward form of ritual or myth that the ideal human takes.

IOW, going to a school of philosophy does not make one the ideal wise human, no more than professing the human Jesus as God makes one a virtuous person, no more than praying to Budda earns nirvana for the soul. We reach the ideal state of being human by working out in our daily lives what is best for others and ourselves by reason, wisdom, or the inner holy spirit (moral consciousness). In that way we become the sage, budda, or Christ Jesus, —the ideal human set forth in literature for us to emulate, to lead us, to guide us in the way of living.
 
Last edited:
Top