Can Atheists be Moral? Can the Religious?

[Purple Knight]

Question for Debate: Can Atheists be Moral? Can the religious be moral?

I've heard the idea that atheists can't be moral, because physically, we're all just selfish apes, protecting and increasing our genes, and without some supernatural addition to this formula, good is not possible. The ape mother protects her child because that increases her genes. This act, the idea goes, is not moral, but selfish. Any time a human helps another human, this idea would apply.

I've also heard that religious people can't really be moral because whatever they do that is supposedly moral, they don't do it for its own sake, but for the reward. I've even heard that religious people can't be moral because their morality is unthinking. Random total obedience is morally neutral at best, so, the idea goes, if you're just blindly trusting somebody, even a powerful entity, that's not really morality.

Both of these ideas frankly seem to hold water so I'm curious if anyone can be moral.

[The Tanager]

You don't just decide that? Sounds like you accept that you do decide what is fun to you and what isn’t.

Whatever the words would have meant if you used that phrase is unimportant; I’m directly telling you I don’t accept that one decides what is fun to them and what isn’t. I did that with the phrase “I don’t just decide what is fun to me and what isn’t”. If I were to italicize something in that sentence, it would have been “I don’t just decide...”

How do you go from this purpose/goal matches the the given nature the best, to this is objectively the best purpose/goal? I am guessing it would require some sort of premise along the lines of "given purpose is objectively the best." If so, then why can't an atheist appeal to something like "self-assigned purpose is objectively the best" to ground objective morality under atheism?

Self-assigned and objective (in this context) are contradictions. It must be something assigned outside of one’s self, just like the shape of the earth, etc.

I think so, if I understand you correctly... To be clear, here is an example: I am saying "you shouldn't be lazy" is the same as "I don't like it when you are lazy," yet I like being lazy.

So, all you are saying is (1) you don’t like it, not something else beyond that, namely, (2) that I should not do it because you don’t like it?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #28]

Why only "Certain aspects" and what do you believe those aspects are?
Specific to the "mirroring" I am referring to the universe displaying the attributes, motivations, attitudes et al of its creator.

I don’t think bits of creation are omniscient, omnipresent for instance.

I am referring to the physical mechanics at this point. What of the mechanics of the creation do you observe the mirroring of the creator. What in the handiwork?

I think it’s obvious that aspects display conflicting motivations, attitudes with each other (the rapist and the ones who hate rape, for instance) and, therefore, could not logically be the motivation or attitude of the Creator.

Okay. It is not really what I was asking. I am more interested in the universe (galaxies, stars et al) and whether these tell us anything about the creators motivations and attitude.

That this happens mean that it was set up with that possibility, due to free will, for instance.

Again, at present I am focusing upon the universe itself (as a whole) and specific to that, the physical nature of its construction to see if anything can be identified as something which gives us a hint of the creators intent and character and motivation.

I see no reason to believe the earth is a mindful entity

Atheists too, see no reason to believe the earth is a mindful entity. No doubt this shared lack of belief is motivated by different reasons.

but even then, it could still give freedom to some of its creations which would mean that we can’t necessarily draw a conclusion about it just from observing its creations’ actions. There could be some similarities but not everything is a mirror.

At least you - the theist - is willing to engage with the idea.

I agree that we can't draw a conclusion about the nature of its mind, attitudes, motivations et al as a creator, just from observing its creations. We would have to delve deeper and examine what is being observed. We can at least conclude right now that it is extremely smart. Way smarter than any human being even.
We could also conclude that it engages with its handiwork, and is likely omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent in relation to said handiwork. In that, while we couldn't extend those local powers it has, into the rest of the universe, we could see it as a mirror-mind of sorts, to the overall creator (of the universe) mind.

If there was no reason/requirement for God to make moral agents, why argue God had a choice to make at all?

Reason and requirement aren’t synonyms.

Yes. I should have written "If there was no reason and no requirement for God to make moral agents, why argue God had a choice to make at all?

There is a reason to and reasons not to.

What was the reason to? What were the reasons not to?

God faced that choice

Perhaps as we face a mirror?

(and wasn’t required to choose a certain way)

Was not a moral agent?

and decided to

become a moral agent?

to create moral agents and non-moral agents (not immoral, but non-moral, like trees, dogs, etc.)

An interesting dynamic unfolding there, wouldn't you agree?

It is hard to observe whether a tree thinks it wrong for a human to cut it down.
However, (without getting sidetracked) I think one can make a case for a dog being a moral agent...

But what we can agree with (perhaps) is that living forms might indeed share a similar mindfulness but the extent of what said mindfulness could exhibit intelligence through said form, is limited by the design of said form.

What has moral agency got to do with choosing to be theist or atheist?

I didn’t say it did. I connected their freedom with being able to choose to be a theist or atheist.

Yes, I understand that. My question is not about freedom to choose, but freedom to choose exactly the same moral outlook as theists. Both can choose to be moral agents?

What if rather, a the human form (generally) is so designed that - given a mind - the mind has no choice but to use the form and be a moral agent?
Therein, there is no actual observed phenomena which requires us to include the labels as all human minds are limited by the forms design and cannot help but be automatically moral agents. (Specifically I am focusing on morality (good and bad) which includes immorality.)
Humans (rather than "atheists/theists") don't get the choice to be or not to be moral agents. Their choice is in how they use their agency.

Going back to the idea of the earth being a mindful entity...if the earth has it that an animal can get stuck in the mud and suffer a prolonged and agonising death, and also creates humans with free will and these humans decide that they will help the poor animal by freeing it from its (otherwise) sure-slow-death situation, by choosing to do so are those humans exhibiting morality/being moral agents?

If they decide to help instead of just instinctually are determined to help, then, yes, they are exhibiting their moral agency.

Why are you making a distinction? What is this distinction based upon?

What difference is there as to whether one acts from instinct rather than one thinks about it first and then acts?

What if what we call "instinct" is more of a natural reaction which is built into the design of the form through which the mind is engaged with?

For example, what if the "instinct" (re the individual) was a product of the subconcious aspect of the overall mind, and in that the human personality was simply unaware (unconcious) of the role of influence said subconscious was having on the conscious actions/reactions of the one who just went ahead and saved the poor animal stuck in the mud without hesitation or thinking about it as if a decision had to be made whether or not to do so?

Why would one be "exhibiting their moral agency" and the other not?

Believing in a god is different from believing we exist within a creation.

The most obvious difference is that there is one creation (the universe) but many ideas of god/the nature of the creator.

(I have even seen it argued by atheists, that in theory, they can believe they exist within a creation without having to believe in any particular god which created it. It may well be that they can, although I have not seen any argument from atheists as to why that could be the case.)

I think believing in a specific god is different from believing that we exist within a creation based on how I thought you were defining creation as necessarily the result of a mind(s).

I am focussed upon that, yes. I am also focussed upon what information we can obtain from the creation, which allows specifics to do with the creators specific nature. What can we say about the universe, which mirrors what we can understand about the specific god which created it?

If theism is true and God loves us, then He made us in specific ways with specific purpose(s)

If Theism (Pantheism as another example) is true, She not only loves us but also designed our bodies to be moral agents for said specific purpose.

and to reach our full happiness we should build a world that follows that pattern.

However, what is that "specific purpose" and is humanity in the process of building it?
If our full happiness is in embracing lovingkindness, or perhaps more accurately - channeling lovingkindness - the result will be exhibited in the things we create, correct?
This is what I am asking re the universe (as a whole). It was created and therefore we could see in what has been built, a reflection of a "specific purpose" so if it is the result of lovingkindness, this should be reflected in the build itself.

If atheism is true, anything we want goes in the sense that it is equally our “purpose” as anything else others want. The Nazi desires are no better or worse than our own.

What Nazis? They had their day in the sun, and the rest of the world struck them down, don't you agree?
But what have Nazis and atheists to do with each other? Are you saying that they were really atheists pretending to be doing Gods work?

Whether one is a theist or an atheist doesn’t change the above, no matter which one is true.

They are labels and somewhat conflated/confused with one another anyway. One say's "we don't exist within a created thing" and goes about being a moral agent anyway (because there is no choice as that is how the human form has been designed) and the other say's "we do exist within a created thing" and goes about being a moral agent anyway (for the exact same reason).

This observation leads me to (at least tentatively) conclude that one's position (of belief) isn't a real factor in how one chooses to use their natural and unavoidable ability to be an agent of morality. The choice isn't in choosing whether or not to "be a moral agent" but rather (and specifically) the choice is in deciding how one exhibits - either by being moral or by being immoral, and (perhaps) often, being a mix of both.

[The Tanager]

I am referring to the physical mechanics at this point. What of the mechanics of the creation do you observe the mirroring of the creator. What in the handiwork?

I might not be understanding you; could you give some specifics as to actual physical mechanics you are talking about that you want my opinion on? You said later you are asking about galaxies, stars, etc., but it’s still not clear to me what specifically about those you are asking me about.

Atheists too, see no reason to believe the earth is a mindful entity. No doubt this shared lack of belief is motivated by different reasons.

Not necessarily. We could both be motivated by observations about reality and logical reasoning.

I agree that we can't draw a conclusion about the nature of its mind, attitudes, motivations et al as a creator, just from observing its creations. We would have to delve deeper and examine what is being observed. We can at least conclude right now that it is extremely smart. Way smarter than any human being even.

We could also conclude that it engages with its handiwork, and is likely omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent in relation to said handiwork. In that, while we couldn't extend those local powers it has, into the rest of the universe, we could see it as a mirror-mind of sorts, to the overall creator (of the universe) mind.

You seem to be claiming this for the Earth, not just for the Creator of the whole universe. Is that correct? If so, we can’t conclude any of this unless there is good reason to believe the Earth is mindful. Do you have any support for that?

There is a reason to and reasons not to.

What was the reason to? What were the reasons not to?

If one wanted to have a loving community with other beings, this is a reason to create one world versus another (one with moral agents versus one with no moral agents, for example).

God faced that choice

Perhaps as we face a mirror?

No, I don’t think so. That would be a separate question. God facing a choice between a world with moral agents and a world with none is not like us looking in the mirror.

Was not a moral agent?

and decided to

become a moral agent?

No.

It is hard to observe whether a tree thinks it wrong for a human to cut it down.
However, (without getting sidetracked) I think one can make a case for a dog being a moral agent…

But what we can agree with (perhaps) is that living forms might indeed share a similar mindfulness but the extent of what said mindfulness could exhibit intelligence through said form, is limited by the design of said form.

Yes, that seems to be a sidetrack. I don’t think trees or dogs are moral agents or have the same kind of mindfulness, but that question seems irrelevant to the main point.

Humans (rather than "atheists/theists") don't get the choice to be or not to be moral agents. Their choice is in how they use their agency.

I completely agree.

If they decide to help instead of just instinctually are determined to help, then, yes, they are exhibiting their moral agency.

Why are you making a distinction? What is this distinction based upon?

What difference is there as to whether one acts from instinct rather than one thinks about it first and then acts?

It makes a huge difference. Moral agency, choosing good or evil, requires the ability to make a choice. Acting on instinct means one has no choice at all.

What if what we call "instinct" is more of a natural reaction which is built into the design of the form through which the mind is engaged with?

If it is a natural reaction, then it is the same as we normally mean by “instinct”.

For example, what if the "instinct" (re the individual) was a product of the subconcious aspect of the overall mind, and in that the human personality was simply unaware (unconcious) of the role of influence said subconscious was having on the conscious actions/reactions of the one who just went ahead and saved the poor animal stuck in the mud without hesitation or thinking about it as if a decision had to be made whether or not to do so?

Why would one be "exhibiting their moral agency" and the other not?

In this description, the “subconscious” is the moral agent and the “human personality” is just a puppet, not the real entity.

However, what is that "specific purpose" and is humanity in the process of building it?
If our full happiness is in embracing lovingkindness, or perhaps more accurately - channeling lovingkindness - the result will be exhibited in the things we create, correct?
This is what I am asking re the universe (as a whole). It was created and therefore we could see in what has been built, a reflection of a "specific purpose" so if it is the result of lovingkindness, this should be reflected in the build itself.

Yes, I think the universe shows God’s lovingkindness. I think our purpose is to take care of the earth and each other in God’s ways and while all of us (theists and atheists) fail at times, Christianity is the call for one to come to God to find out how to love the way we should.

What Nazis? They had their day in the sun, and the rest of the world struck them down, don't you agree?
But what have Nazis and atheists to do with each other? Are you saying that they were really atheists pretending to be doing Gods work?

No, I’m not saying that. I’m saying that if atheism is true, while we defeated the Nazis, that isn’t a “good” (or “evil”) thing; it’s just what happened.

This observation leads me to (at least tentatively) conclude that one's position (of belief) isn't a real factor in how one chooses to use their natural and unavoidable ability to be an agent of morality. The choice isn't in choosing whether or not to "be a moral agent" but rather (and specifically) the choice is in deciding how one exhibits - either by being moral or by being immoral, and (perhaps) often, being a mix of both.

But our actions come out of our true beliefs. Change what we believe and we will act differently.

[William]

I am referring to the physical mechanics at this point. What of the mechanics of the creation do you observe the mirroring of the creator. What in the handiwork?

I might not be understanding you; could you give some specifics as to actual physical mechanics you are talking about that you want my opinion on? You said later you are asking about galaxies, stars, etc., but it’s still not clear to me what specifically about those you are asking me about.

Observe a galaxy. In the observation can we identify anything which gives us a clue to the nature of the mind which created it?

Atheists too, see no reason to believe the earth is a mindful entity. No doubt this shared lack of belief is motivated by different reasons.

Not necessarily. We could both be motivated by observations about reality and logical reasoning.

Even so, the difference would be related to the lacking (atheist) and having (theist) the belief we exist within a thing created mindfully.
If the earth is mindful, then an atheist would see no reason to believe that it was, because such belief would fall under the "we exist within a mindfully created thing" (therefore "god") whereas a theist might have to change the way they think about "what (who et al) "god" is (re their particular ideas/beliefs about the nature of the creator mind are).

I agree that we can't draw a conclusion about the nature of its mind, attitudes, motivations et al as a creator, just from observing its creations. We would have to delve deeper and examine what is being observed. We can at least conclude right now that it is extremely smart. Way smarter than any human being even.

We could also conclude that it engages with its handiwork, and is likely omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent in relation to said handiwork. In that, while we couldn't extend those local powers it has, into the rest of the universe, we could see it as a mirror-mind of sorts, to the overall creator (of the universe) mind.

You seem to be claiming this for the Earth, not just for the Creator of the whole universe. Is that correct?

What is correct is that I would not be able to claim something for the one, and not also for the other.

If so, we can’t conclude any of this unless there is good reason to believe the Earth is mindful.

There appears to be no better example of mindfulness in the universe, except for the earth, so it has that going for it.

Do you have any support for that?

I think so, re the observation we are able to carry out in regard to the question. Certainly it is able to support itself in that sense, which is not the same case in regard to any support we have for thinking or believing that the whole universe is the product of a mindful creator.

I would even go so far as to say that it is because we have the examples of the earth's mindfulness, that such is used as reasons for why we should therefore presume the whole universe is mindfully created.

If one wanted to have a loving community with other beings, this is a reason to create one world versus another (one with moral agents versus one with no moral agents, for example).

Yet here we are within a world where everyone is an agent of morality...unless you have an argument which shows us that this is not the actual case.

God faced that choice

Perhaps as we face a mirror?

No, I don’t think so. That would be a separate question. God facing a choice between a world with moral agents and a world with none is not like us looking in the mirror.

How can you be certain though?
How can you know that the reason things are as they are and the universe was designed as it is, isn't a clear case of its creator "looking in the mirror" and facing the choice to be an agent of morality, and that human forms were not designed to reflect that?

(The Creator) Was not a moral agent?

and decided to

become a moral agent?

No.

"No" what? "No", god was not an agent of morality or "no" God did not decide to become an agent of morality?

Humans (rather than "atheists/theists") don't get the choice to be or not to be moral agents. Their choice is in how they use their agency.

I completely agree.

I am not currently convinced that is the case. You seemed to have been disagreeing.

Why are you making a distinction? What is this distinction based upon?

What difference is there as to whether one acts from instinct rather than one thinks about it first and then acts?

It makes a huge difference. Moral agency, choosing good or evil, requires the ability to make a choice. Acting on instinct means one has no choice at all.

I disagree. Moral agency not the ability to make a choice between opposing options. Moral agency is what allows us to determine to act morally or immorally. Therein is the choice factor.
We do not have the choice to BE agents of morality as our forms are design specifically so that option is not available to us. Only the option to act morally or immorally is open to our power to choose ("free will" as you refer to that.)

What if what we call "instinct" is more of a natural reaction which is built into the design of the form through which the mind is engaged with?

If it is a natural reaction, then it is the same as we normally mean by “instinct”.

Then we best look at what we mean by "instinct" as to whether our definition is accurate.

For example, what if the "instinct" (re the individual) was a product of the subconscious aspect of the overall mind, and in that the human personality was simply unaware (unconscious) of the role of influence said subconscious was having on the conscious actions/reactions of the one who just went ahead and saved the poor animal stuck in the mud without hesitation or thinking about it as if a decision had to be made whether or not to do so?

Why would one be "exhibiting their moral agency" and the other not?

In this description, the “subconscious” is the moral agent and the “human personality” is just a puppet, not the real entity.

I disagree. The "puppet" aspect is simply that which is not fully aware of its whole and true nature. It is simply not aware of the nuances associated with being human and tends to either ignore/be indifferent to the subconscious workings of the mind (focusing mainly on physics as atheist tend to do) or underestimate its importance or even demonize it (as many theists tend to do).
When that "puppet" regards itself as "the human personality", then it is woefully inadequate in being able to understand its whole self or even its whole capability in relation to how its form was designed, and what its mind-field actually encompasses.

Therefore, any decisions of morality said "puppet" makes in such ignorance, are likely to be wrong/missing the mark.

However, what is that "specific purpose" and is humanity in the process of building it?
If our full happiness is in embracing lovingkindness, or perhaps more accurately - channeling lovingkindness - the result will be exhibited in the things we create, correct?
This is what I am asking re the universe (as a whole). It was created and therefore we could see in what has been built, a reflection of a "specific purpose" so if it is the result of lovingkindness, this should be reflected in the build itself.

Yes, I think the universe shows God’s lovingkindness.

What makes you think that? Can you point to any specific object and say that this object supports your belief that "God’s lovingkindness" is apparent?

I think our purpose is to take care of the earth and each other in God’s ways

So there it is. The support you appear to be giving re that object is the earth Herself.

and while all of us (theists and atheists) fail at times, Christianity is the call for one to come to God to find out how to love the way we should.

Or so you believe. Why not just say "Theism" rather than specifically "Christianity" and what ways specifically has Christianity provided this solution on "how to love the way we should" and why isn't this correct way of loving not built into the design of the human form, so that we are agents of Love rather than simply agents of morality?

The thing about the universe is that it is designed not as a completely finished build, but rather something which is consistently developing into something else.
Specific to that is the earth and in regard to the human form, this evolution into morality and love is not obvious from the go-get but something nonetheless installed in the overall programming of said form.

And this may well mirror the creators intentions - that perhaps the creator of the universe did not know what love was, nor what morality was, and that is why the universe is as it is - evolving into the understanding.

Your beliefs (as I understand them from the many times we have interacted) would have it that the creator-mind of this universe does indeed know what love and morality are and knew this from before it created the universe but again, we see no particular evidence of either in our objective reality experience of the universe, so why then did the creator choose to design the human form the way it is, place mindfulness into those forms and then largely leave those human personalities developing to their own device(s) to "nut it our for themselves"?

One theistic answer (largely from the Christianity sector of Theism) tell it that it was some type of "punishment" but it could just as easily be seen to be something that said creator-mind had itself gone through, and it wanted to grow human personalities which could experience the same and learn from that, what the creator-mind already knew but did not want to simply "install" that knowledge into the human form, because "human personalities" could not successfully be grown in an environment which ignorance wasn't a contributing factor.
Thus, the human personalities could only be grown in an environment which provided for complete ignorance - starting at "square one" - "blank slate" et al.
Thus, we have a competent explanation for why the universe is designed the precise way and manner in which it is.

What Nazis? They had their day in the sun, and the rest of the world struck them down, don't you agree?
But what have Nazis and atheists to do with each other? Are you saying that they were really atheists pretending to be doing Gods work?

No, I’m not saying that. I’m saying that if atheism is true, while we defeated the Nazis, that isn’t a “good” (or “evil”) thing; it’s just what happened.

But isn't the important moral of that story that defeating the Nazi (re that entirely atheistic world) was seen to be the optimal choice (of path) to take to preserve something(s) considered precious and in need of maximum protection?

And why can't it be said that giving maximum protection to life (something precious in this universe re earth and its seemingly being an anomaly) without consigning a "good" or "evil" declaration to/over the activity?

In what way would either an earth (planet) mind or an overall creator of the universe mind see these atheistic-based results as something "detrimental" to their overall "plans", since those "plans" are claimed to be for the same purpose/result?

That purpose being...
"To preserve the anomaly and see where that will take "us" in relation to what is out there in the rest of the universe."

This observation leads me to (at least tentatively) conclude that one's position (of belief) isn't a real factor in how one chooses to use their natural and unavoidable ability to be an agent of morality. The choice isn't in choosing whether or not to "be a moral agent" but rather (and specifically) the choice is in deciding how one exhibits - either by being moral or by being immoral, and (perhaps) often, being a mix of both.

But our actions come out of our true beliefs. Change what we believe and we will act differently.

Even so, as I attempted to explain directly above - "our actions" even appearing to derive from our beliefs (either atheistic or theistic) produce the same results. The path may be different, but the results will be the same.

Since all humans are within bodies which force us to be moral agents (we have no ability to exercise "free will" re that) we only have the ability to act morally or immorally (or a mix of both) and either in a theistic world (one you might also want to briefly describe) or an atheistic world, the results will inevitably be the same. Life will be preserved.

Thus, the "problem" cannot be directly related to one or the other (theism or atheism) but the fact that there are both and they are at war with one another and this spills out into the environment as an actually.

Thus, the "solution" is to compromise and build a world together that recognises the same agenda (Preserve LIFE) and therein, identify all that which is the biggest barrier to achieving said goal and cease our support of those.

The underlying reason for debate is not simply to beat down opposition, but rather to use the it to nut things out altogether.

[The Tanager]

Observe a galaxy. In the observation can we identify anything which gives us a clue to the nature of the mind which created it?

I’m asking for a specific mechanic that you see when observing the galaxy that you want talked about.

We can at least conclude right now that it is extremely smart. Way smarter than any human being even.

We can’t conclude that the Earth is extremely smart unless we first have good reason to conclude it is mindful. What is your evidence of that?

You seem to be claiming this for the Earth, not just for the Creator of the whole universe. Is that correct?

What is correct is that I would not be able to claim something for the one, and not also for the other.

Why not? Is it incoherent for a theist to claim the Earth is not mindful, but the Creator of the Earth is? I don’t see any reason to think so, but if so, why? If not, then one is able to logically claim something for the one and not also for the other.

There appears to be no better example of mindfulness in the universe, except for the earth, so it has that going for it.

That isn’t evidence for it being mindful, it just asserts it is an example of mindfulness. How is it an example of mindfulness at all? Where is that observation or reasoning?

I think so, re the observation we are able to carry out in regard to the question. Certainly it is able to support itself in that sense, which is not the same case in regard to any support we have for thinking or believing that the whole universe is the product of a mindful creator.

Are you saying that since it isn’t logically incompatible it has support for it actually being the case? Something else?

Yet here we are within a world where everyone is an agent of morality...unless you have an argument which shows us that this is not the actual case.

Yes…how does this defeat what I’ve said? I’ve said God chose to make that world.

How can you be certain though?
How can you know that the reason things are as they are and the universe was designed as it is, isn't a clear case of its creator "looking in the mirror" and facing the choice to be an agent of morality, and that human forms were not designed to reflect that?

If you simply mean that our moral freedom reflects God’s freedom to choose things, then I agree. If you don’t, then I don’t understand your “looking in the mirror” analogy.

"No" what? "No", god was not an agent of morality or "no" God did not decide to become an agent of morality?

I don’t see how it is possible for a non-moral agent to all of a sudden become a moral agent by its own choosing.

I am not currently convinced that is the case. You seemed to have been disagreeing.

No, you have been misunderstanding. I completely agree that humans don’t get to choose whether they are moral or non-moral agents. They do get to choose whether they will act morally or immorally (if theism is true).

I disagree. Moral agency not the ability to make a choice between opposing options. Moral agency is what allows us to determine to act morally or immorally. Therein is the choice factor.

“Moral or immoral” is a textbook opposing option.

Then we best look at what we mean by "instinct" as to whether our definition is accurate.

That’s always good to do. How would you define/describe it?

I disagree. The "puppet" aspect is simply that which is not fully aware of its whole and true nature. It is simply not aware of the nuances associated with being human and tends to either ignore/be indifferent to the subconscious workings of the mind (focusing mainly on physics as atheist tend to do) or underestimate its importance or even demonize it (as many theists tend to do).
When that "puppet" regards itself as "the human personality", then it is woefully inadequate in being able to understand its whole self or even its whole capability in relation to how its form was designed, and what its mind-field actually encompasses.

Therefore, any decisions of morality said "puppet" makes in such ignorance, are likely to be wrong/missing the mark.

Either the subconscious controls the action and, therefore, is the agent, or it is just one factor that the human personality can take into effect (and even allow to go unchecked and unreflected upon), which makes the human personality the agent.

Yes, I think the universe shows God’s lovingkindness.

What makes you think that? Can you point to any specific object and say that this object supports your belief that "God’s lovingkindness" is apparent?

How life on Earth is designed to allow for not only our life, but the kind of life we have with love and joys (even though this necessarily includes the possibility of non-loving and non-joyous events as well).

So there it is. The support you appear to be giving re that object is the earth Herself.

No, I’ve said nothing of a personal Earth in support of anything.

Or so you believe. Why not just say "Theism" rather than specifically "Christianity" and what ways specifically has Christianity provided this solution on "how to love the way we should" and why isn't this correct way of loving not built into the design of the human form, so that we are agents of Love rather than simply agents of morality?

As a Christian, I spoke of what I know more deeply than other views. By that I am not saying other religions don’t claim something similar, although not all religions do claim the same.

Christianity has given us the society we have today, with the ethics so many take for granted, from caring to the poor, to hospitals, etc. Christians certainly haven’t always lived that out, but Christianity is the worldview that calls for it and has brought it about in history.

Love can’t be built into the design of anything because love requires free will. To love is to will and act towards the good of another. Having something built in is determinism, not freedom. We can have perfectly good actions built in, but that isn’t love.

The thing about the universe is that it is designed not as a completely finished build, but rather something which is consistently developing into something else.
Specific to that is the earth and in regard to the human form, this evolution into morality and love is not obvious from the go-get but something nonetheless installed in the overall programming of said form.

And this may well mirror the creators intentions - that perhaps the creator of the universe did not know what love was, nor what morality was, and that is why the universe is as it is - evolving into the understanding.

If the creator didn’t know what love or morality was then it logically couldn’t install that into the overall programming from the go-get.

Your beliefs (as I understand them from the many times we have interacted) would have it that the creator-mind of this universe does indeed know what love and morality are and knew this from before it created the universe but again, we see no particular evidence of either in our objective reality experience of the universe, so why then did the creator choose to design the human form the way it is, place mindfulness into those forms and then largely leave those human personalities developing to their own device(s) to "nut it our for themselves"?

Why do you think there is no evidence of this? And why do you think the Creator left us on our own?

One theistic answer (largely from the Christianity sector of Theism) tell it that it was some type of "punishment"

I don’t think that is the Biblical answer and, therefore, not a truly Christ-ian one.

but it could just as easily be seen to be something that said creator-mind had itself gone through, and it wanted to grow human personalities which could experience the same and learn from that, what the creator-mind already knew but did not want to simply "install" that knowledge into the human form, because "human personalities" could not successfully be grown in an environment which ignorance wasn't a contributing factor.
Thus, the human personalities could only be grown in an environment which provided for complete ignorance - starting at "square one" - "blank slate" et al.
Thus, we have a competent explanation for why the universe is designed the precise way and manner in which it is.

But even this is, logically, installing the knowledge, albeit through a more winding road.

But isn't the important moral of that story that defeating the Nazi (re that entirely atheistic world) was seen to be the optimal choice (of path) to take to preserve something(s) considered precious and in need of maximum protection?

On atheism, that story is pure fiction, though. That’s the point I’m making and it is very important to this discussion. There is no optimal choice of path, nothing objectively precious, nothing requiring protection. We were just stronger than the Nazis, so our desires won out.

And why can't it be said that giving maximum protection to life (something precious in this universe re earth and its seemingly being an anomaly) without consigning a "good" or "evil" declaration to/over the activity?

“Precious” is a value word (i.e., good/evil), so you’ve got to take that out if you want to do away with good/evil. And then it’s just one path in life, equal to not giving max protection to life.

In what way would either an earth (planet) mind or an overall creator of the universe mind see these atheistic-based results as something "detrimental" to their overall "plans", since those "plans" are claimed to be for the same purpose/result?

That purpose being...
"To preserve the anomaly and see where that will take "us" in relation to what is out there in the rest of the universe."

If that is the purpose, to just see where things go, with no good or bad, then sure, but I think a Creator is more loving if the overall plan is to take us to goodness. Why is seeing where things go better?

Even so, as I attempted to explain directly above - "our actions" even appearing to derive from our beliefs (either atheistic or theistic) produce the same results. The path may be different, but the results will be the same.

Since all humans are within bodies which force us to be moral agents (we have no ability to exercise "free will" re that) we only have the ability to act morally or immorally (or a mix of both) and either in a theistic world (one you might also want to briefly describe) or an atheistic world, the results will inevitably be the same. Life will be preserved.

But they don’t produce the same results. For instance, Judeo-Christian beliefs led people to rescue deformed babies and females cruelly discarded by ancient Roman society. Those aren't the same results. We get the same results today because atheists have been formed by Christianity. Even when they disagree with Christians on specific moral issues, it is because of principles instilled in them by Christianity. Atheists cannot get objective moral values from their worldview, they must borrow them.

Thus, the "problem" cannot be directly related to one or the other (theism or atheism) but the fact that there are both and they are at war with one another and this spills out into the environment as an actually.

No, we don’t act out of war with one another. Some theists act morally the way they do because of their beliefs and upbringing. Atheists and some theists act morally the way they do because of their upbringing in spite of their beliefs.

Thus, the "solution" is to compromise and build a world together that recognises the same agenda (Preserve LIFE) and therein, identify all that which is the biggest barrier to achieving said goal and cease our support of those.

The underlying reason for debate is not simply to beat down opposition, but rather to use the it to nut things out altogether.

Yes, we should work together towards a goal of mutual good, but what we believe about truth informs what we think is good, so we've got to do both; seek common ground and challenge each other with our disagreements in pursuit of truth, not just cooperation. Unless atheism is true, then there is no "should" that determines what goals we each would be rational to follow.

[Purple Knight]

So, even if omniscience told you, X would make you the most happy (at least in the long run), you’d be frustrated that you were told that and could now reach your highest level of happiness?

Seeing as how I'm not personally omniscient, I'd have to either trust, in which case I could be wrong, or simply tell him, look, I have no way to know you're telling the truth so I have to go try it and see for myself. If someone tells me something will make me happy I'll usually at least try it. If someone tells me something won't make me happy, without a compelling reason not to do it, I want to try anyway.

It's still not just about carnal happiness. I can value something above my own happiness. I can select something that will make me miserable and hurt me. Intentionally. And if there's a good reason that's kind of what makes us human.

Then why doesn't objective morality allow for differences in policy? Someone might like free speech. Someone else might value his own free speech less than he values the harm he might suffer being insulted. In cases like these why can't the two sides just live where the law is different and not bother one another?

Why can’t that happen with objective morality?

Because if somebody really is objectively morally right, he's every bit justified going into the other side and forcing them to live as he does.

[The Tanager]

Seeing as how I'm not personally omniscient, I'd have to either trust, in which case I could be wrong, or simply tell him, look, I have no way to know you're telling the truth so I have to go try it and see for myself. If someone tells me something will make me happy I'll usually at least try it. If someone tells me something won't make me happy, without a compelling reason not to do it, I want to try anyway.

Yes, but that trust could, conceivably, be built up and, if it is, wouldn’t that be a wonderful thing to lean on in trying to figure life out?

It's still not just about carnal happiness. I can value something above my own happiness. I can select something that will make me miserable and hurt me. Intentionally. And if there's a good reason that's kind of what makes us human.

I definitely agree.

Because if somebody really is objectively morally right, he's every bit justified going into the other side and forcing them to live as he does.

Not if forcing someone to live as he does isn’t objectively moral.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #35]

Observe a galaxy. In the observation can we identify anything which gives us a clue to the nature of the mind which created it?

I’m asking for a specific mechanic that you see when observing the galaxy that you want talked about.

Observe a galaxy. Any will do. Is there anything in the object which we can identify which gives us a clue to the nature of the mind which created it?

We can at least conclude right now that it is extremely smart. Way smarter than any human being even.

We can’t conclude that the Earth is extremely smart unless we first have good reason to conclude it is mindful. What is your evidence of that?

The complex life forms are evidence of a very intelligent entity. Do you disagree with that evidence pointing to that conclusion?

What is correct is that I would not be able to claim something for the one, and not also for the other.

Why not? Is it incoherent for a theist to claim the Earth is not mindful, but the Creator of the Earth is?

Given the evidence, if the act of being incorenent with the claim is the same as having double-standards. then yes.

I don’t see any reason to think so, but if so, why?

Because having double standards is no good reason to think so.

If not, then one is able to logically claim something for the one and not also for the other.

If one insists on having double standards re accepting the one, but not the other, the claim doesn't fit under the heading of "logical" any more than square circles do.

There appears to be no better example of mindfulness in the universe, except for the earth, so it has that going for it.

That isn’t evidence for it being mindful, it just asserts it is an example of mindfulness.

Isn't that what theist do re the creator? What makes it correct for you to accept the one, but reject the other?

How is it an example of mindfulness at all? Where is that observation or reasoning?

I could ask you the same thing re your belief in a creator existing outside of the universe. And you would point to the Earth as your example of evidence for that, would you not?

Re the observation we are able to carry out in regard to the question.

Certainly it is able to support itself in that sense, which is not the same case in regard to any support we have for thinking or believing that the whole universe is the product of a mindful creator, except for the fact of the Earth.

I would even go so far as to say that it is because we have the examples of the earth's mindfulness, that such is used as reasons for why we should therefore presume the whole universe is mindfully created. You are clearly doing this yourself...while not entirely connecting the dots...that it is yet to be seen by you that it is a rational argument that the Earth is the form of an intelligent entity "residing" in said form, and should be allowed onto your table for discussion.

Yet here we are within a world where everyone is an agent of morality...unless you have an argument which shows us that this is not the actual case.

Yes…how does this defeat what I’ve said?

You are arguing a double standard. Double standards are defeatable.

I’ve said God chose to make that world.

And we know enough of the process to understand that the making of that world required a number of epochs to accomplish and apparently required direct mindfulness.

How can you be certain though?
How can you know that the reason things are as they are and the universe was designed as it is, isn't a clear case of its creator "looking in the mirror" and facing the choice to be an agent of morality, and that human forms were not designed to reflect that?

If you simply mean that our moral freedom reflects God’s freedom to choose things, then I agree.

The universe acts as an overall body in which mind is forced to be a moral agent. The freedom part is in how we choose to exhibit as an agent of morality. Immorally, not immorally or both.
Our freedom is re that had to do with the ability to choose to act immorally or not (or both).

Without the universe being designed as it is, how is the mind of God able to experience being an agent of morality?

What is it about the earth specifically which allows for one to experience being an agent of morality?

"No" what? "No", god was not an agent of morality or "no" God did not decide to become an agent of morality?

I don’t see how it is possible for a non-moral agent to all of a sudden become a moral agent by its own choosing.

What do you mean by "all of a sudden"? Do you mean "having a change of heart?" Something else?
Until you understand what it is you mean with your question, how will it be possible for you to understand how a mind can change?

You have yet to agree with me that the human body forces the mind using it to be an agent of morality, so perhaps that is a good place to focus our attention on in order to potential reach an understanding of how such is possible.

What evidence do you have which makes you think that the creator of this universe was an agent of morality before creating said universe? Can anything in the universe itself support that belief?

I completely agree that humans don’t get to choose whether they are moral or non-moral agents.

I disagree. As I have been arguing, our bodies force us to be agents of morality. It is not about "moral and non-moral" as there is no such thing as a "non-moral" human agent because humans have no choice but to be agents of morality as the situation demands that of us all.

They do get to choose whether they will act morally or immorally (if theism is true).

Here you conflate and confuse what being an agent of morality really is. A quick search for definition is "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour."

The better way to phase it is "If theism is true, humans do get to choose whether they act immorally or do not act immorally" or words to that effect. This way theists can avoid a confusion they will otherwise carry around in their sensibilities.

I disagree. Moral agency not the ability to make a choice between opposing options. Moral agency is what allows us to determine to act morally or immorally. Therein is the choice factor.

“Moral or immoral” is a textbook opposing option.

Exactly my point. If I had worded it "Being an agent of morality is not the ability to make a choice between opposing options. Being an agent of morality is what allows us to determine either to act immorally or not to act immorally" then my point would have been clearer.
Since I used the phrasing you use, the conflation and confusion was apparent in my wording.

Being an agent of morality allows for us to have the choice, but is not that which determines which way we choose.
That is why I am arguing that being agents of morality is not something we choose but something which the design of the human form insists upon the minds of those developing human personalities occupying human form.

Essentially it is an aspect of the human experience which the mind has no choice but to go along with as part of said experience.

If it is a natural reaction, then it is the same as we normally mean by “instinct”.

Then we best look at what we mean by "instinct" as to whether our definition is accurate.

That’s always good to do. How would you define/describe it?

I would describe it as something which comes with the design of the human form. Thus, I would refer to the "agency of morality" as being an "instinct" in context of the overall argument I am presenting.

Either the subconscious controls the action and, therefore, is the agent, or it is just one factor that the human personality can take into effect (and even allow to go unchecked and unreflected upon), which makes the human personality the agent.

This is also reflected in many theistic mythologies.

Re the Christianities mythologies (or for that matter the Abrahamic mythologies in general) the subconscious is like unto the God-mind, so "Either the God-mind controls the action and, therefore, is the agent, or it is just one factor that the human personality can choose to take into effect or choose to allow it to go unchecked and unreflected upon, which makes the human personality the agent."

This is specific to biblical Jesus claiming that the kingdom of God is within.
You are correct that the human personality alone can choose to be at the helm of their own life experience.
The human personality is the one who gets to decide and can decide to be the agent of its own making, or hand that over to the God-mind by viewing that action as the better alternative/choice to make.

Yes, I think the universe shows God’s lovingkindness.

What makes you think that? Can you point to any specific object and say that this object supports your belief that "God’s lovingkindness" is apparent?

How life on Earth is designed to allow for not only our life, but the kind of life we have with love and joys (even though this necessarily includes the possibility of non-loving and non-joyous events as well).

Indeed, as I have mentioned, you would (and anyone would) have to point to the Earth as the one anomaly which provides us with evidence we can say exemplifies lovingkindness.

So there it is. The support you appear to be giving re that object is the earth Herself.

No, I’ve said nothing of a personal Earth in support of anything.

Even so, my point is that it is specifically the Earth to which you have to point to. The step you resist is accepting the idea of the Earth being the body of a mindful (superintelligent) entity doesn't in itself prevent you from having to point to the Earth as the evidence of mindful creation motivated by lovingkindness.

To add to that, even if we were to accept that the Earth is mindful and responsible for the design of it own creations, we could not easily deny that this was done with lovingkindness.

This circles back to the double-standard argument mentioned at the beginning of this post. Why one would have a problem accepting the idea that the Earth is mindful and super intelligent and responsible for Her own creations and is motivated by lovingkindness, while at the same time having no such problem accepting that a creator mind exists outside of the universe is all of those things.

Why not just say "Theism" rather than specifically "Christianity" and what ways specifically has Christianity provided this solution on "how to love the way we should" and why isn't this correct way of loving not built into the design of the human form, so that we are agents of Love rather than simply agents of morality?

Christianity has given us the society we have today, ...

And how is that working out for life on earth?

Some of the Christianities even argue that the society we have today is evil.

Most Christians even seem to believe that thinking of the Earth as a mindful entity responsible for its own creations, is paganism - something which historically the Christianities have ruthlessly/murderously attempted to purge from the human mind, claiming/demonizing such as "idol worship" and other supposed/imposed travesties.

I would hope that there are honest Christians who will accept that such ruthless practice was not part of Gods' plan at all, but rather the product of human personalities demanding to be at the helm in driving their human experience the way they see fit, and demanding others follow suite.

Where do you stand re that?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #35]

Observe a galaxy. In the observation can we identify anything which gives us a clue to the nature of the mind which created it?

I’m asking for a specific mechanic that you see when observing the galaxy that you want talked about.

Observe a galaxy. Any will do. Is there anything in the object which we can identify which gives us a clue to the nature of the mind which created it?

We can at least conclude right now that it is extremely smart. Way smarter than any human being even.

We can’t conclude that the Earth is extremely smart unless we first have good reason to conclude it is mindful. What is your evidence of that?

The complex life forms are evidence of a very intelligent entity. Do you disagree with that evidence pointing to that conclusion?

What is correct is that I would not be able to claim something for the one, and not also for the other.

Why not? Is it incoherent for a theist to claim the Earth is not mindful, but the Creator of the Earth is?

Given the evidence, if the act of being incorenent with the claim is the same as having double-standards. then yes.

I don’t see any reason to think so, but if so, why?

Because having double standards is no good reason to think so.

If not, then one is able to logically claim something for the one and not also for the other.

If one insists on having double standards re accepting the one, but not the other, the claim doesn't fit under the heading of "logical" any more than square circles do.

There appears to be no better example of mindfulness in the universe, except for the earth, so it has that going for it.

That isn’t evidence for it being mindful, it just asserts it is an example of mindfulness.

Isn't that what theist do re the creator? What makes it correct for you to accept the one, but reject the other?

How is it an example of mindfulness at all? Where is that observation or reasoning?

I could ask you the same thing re your belief in a creator existing outside of the universe. And you would point to the Earth as your example of evidence for that, would you not?

Re the observation we are able to carry out in regard to the question.

Certainly it is able to support itself in that sense, which is not the same case in regard to any support we have for thinking or believing that the whole universe is the product of a mindful creator, except for the fact of the Earth.

I would even go so far as to say that it is because we have the examples of the earth's mindfulness, that such is used as reasons for why we should therefore presume the whole universe is mindfully created. You are clearly doing this yourself...while not entirely connecting the dots...that it is yet to be seen by you that it is a rational argument that the Earth is the form of an intelligent entity "residing" in said form, and should be allowed onto your table for discussion.

Yet here we are within a world where everyone is an agent of morality...unless you have an argument which shows us that this is not the actual case.

Yes…how does this defeat what I’ve said?

You are arguing a double standard. Double standards are defeatable.

I’ve said God chose to make that world.

And we know enough of the process to understand that the making of that world required a number of epochs to accomplish and apparently required direct mindfulness.

How can you be certain though?
How can you know that the reason things are as they are and the universe was designed as it is, isn't a clear case of its creator "looking in the mirror" and facing the choice to be an agent of morality, and that human forms were not designed to reflect that?

If you simply mean that our moral freedom reflects God’s freedom to choose things, then I agree.

The universe acts as an overall body in which mind is forced to be a moral agent. The freedom part is in how we choose to exhibit as an agent of morality. Immorally, not immorally or both.
Our freedom is re that had to do with the ability to choose to act immorally or not (or both).

Without the universe being designed as it is, how is the mind of God able to experience being an agent of morality?

What is it about the earth specifically which allows for one to experience being an agent of morality?

"No" what? "No", god was not an agent of morality or "no" God did not decide to become an agent of morality?

I don’t see how it is possible for a non-moral agent to all of a sudden become a moral agent by its own choosing.

What do you mean by "all of a sudden"? Do you mean "having a change of heart?" Something else?
Until you understand what it is you mean with your question, how will it be possible for you to understand how a mind can change?

You have yet to agree with me that the human body forces the mind using it to be an agent of morality, so perhaps that is a good place to focus our attention on in order to potential reach an understanding of how such is possible.

What evidence do you have which makes you think that the creator of this universe was an agent of morality before creating said universe? Can anything in the universe itself support that belief?

I completely agree that humans don’t get to choose whether they are moral or non-moral agents.

I disagree. As I have been arguing, our bodies force us to be agents of morality. It is not about "moral and non-moral" as there is no such thing as a "non-moral" human agent because humans have no choice but to be agents of morality as the situation demands that of us all.

They do get to choose whether they will act morally or immorally (if theism is true).

Here you conflate and confuse what being an agent of morality really is. A quick search for definition is "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour."

The better way to phase it is "If theism is true, humans do get to choose whether they act immorally or do not act immorally" or words to that effect. This way theists can avoid a confusion they will otherwise carry around in their sensibilities.

I disagree. Moral agency not the ability to make a choice between opposing options. Moral agency is what allows us to determine to act morally or immorally. Therein is the choice factor.

“Moral or immoral” is a textbook opposing option.

Exactly my point. If I had worded it "Being an agent of morality is not the ability to make a choice between opposing options. Being an agent of morality is what allows us to determine either to act immorally or not to act immorally" then my point would have been clearer.
Since I used the phrasing you use, the conflation and confusion was apparent in my wording.

Being an agent of morality allows for us to have the choice, but is not that which determines which way we choose.
That is why I am arguing that being agents of morality is not something we choose but something which the design of the human form insists upon the minds of those developing human personalities occupying human form.

Essentially it is an aspect of the human experience which the mind has no choice but to go along with as part of said experience.

If it is a natural reaction, then it is the same as we normally mean by “instinct”.

Then we best look at what we mean by "instinct" as to whether our definition is accurate.

That’s always good to do. How would you define/describe it?

I would describe it as something which comes with the design of the human form. Thus, I would refer to the "agency of morality" as being an "instinct" in context of the overall argument I am presenting.

Either the subconscious controls the action and, therefore, is the agent, or it is just one factor that the human personality can take into effect (and even allow to go unchecked and unreflected upon), which makes the human personality the agent.

This is also reflected in many theistic mythologies.

Re the Christianities mythologies (or for that matter the Abrahamic mythologies in general) the subconscious is like unto the God-mind, so "Either the God-mind controls the action and, therefore, is the agent, or it is just one factor that the human personality can choose to take into effect or choose to allow it to go unchecked and unreflected upon, which makes the human personality the agent."

This is specific to biblical Jesus claiming that the kingdom of God is within.
You are correct that the human personality alone can choose to be at the helm of their own life experience.
The human personality is the one who gets to decide and can decide to be the agent of its own making, or hand that over to the God-mind by viewing that action as the better alternative/choice to make.

Yes, I think the universe shows God’s lovingkindness.

What makes you think that? Can you point to any specific object and say that this object supports your belief that "God’s lovingkindness" is apparent?

How life on Earth is designed to allow for not only our life, but the kind of life we have with love and joys (even though this necessarily includes the possibility of non-loving and non-joyous events as well).

Indeed, as I have mentioned, you would (and anyone would) have to point to the Earth as the one anomaly which provides us with evidence we can say exemplifies lovingkindness.

So there it is. The support you appear to be giving re that object is the earth Herself.

No, I’ve said nothing of a personal Earth in support of anything.

Even so, my point is that it is specifically the Earth to which you have to point to. The step you resist is accepting the idea of the Earth being the body of a mindful (superintelligent) entity doesn't in itself prevent you from having to point to the Earth as the evidence of mindful creation motivated by lovingkindness.

To add to that, even if we were to accept that the Earth is mindful and responsible for the design of it own creations, we could not easily deny that this was done with lovingkindness.

This circles back to the double-standard argument mentioned at the beginning of this post. Why one would have a problem accepting the idea that the Earth is mindful and super intelligent and responsible for Her own creations and is motivated by lovingkindness, while at the same time having no such problem accepting that a creator mind exists outside of the universe is all of those things.

Why not just say "Theism" rather than specifically "Christianity" and what ways specifically has Christianity provided this solution on "how to love the way we should" and why isn't this correct way of loving not built into the design of the human form, so that we are agents of Love rather than simply agents of morality?

Christianity has given us the society we have today, ...

And how is that working out for life on earth?

Some of the Christianities even argue that the society we have today is evil.

Most Christians even seem to believe that thinking of the Earth as a mindful entity responsible for its own creations, is paganism - something which historically the Christianities have ruthlessly/murderously attempted to purge from the human mind, claiming/demonizing such as "idol worship" and other supposed/imposed travesties.

I would hope that there are honest Christians who will accept that such ruthless practice was not part of Gods' plan at all, but rather the product of human personalities demanding to be at the helm in driving their human experience the way they see fit, and demanding others follow suite.

Where do you stand re that?

If the creator didn’t know what love or morality was then it logically couldn’t install that into the overall programming from the go-get.

That seems to be the case, yes.

The installation was part of the "Big Bang" (beginning event) but did not immediately present itself because the program which resulted in the Earth being formed, had to run its course first. Then the program of love and morality could be seeded into said planet and therein make its presence known/felt/intuited/believed et al.

Your beliefs (as I understand them from the many times we have interacted) would have it that the creator-mind of this universe does indeed know what love and morality are and knew this from before it created the universe but again, we see no particular evidence of either in our objective reality experience of the universe, so why then did the creator choose to design the human form the way it is, place mindfulness into those forms and then largely leave those human personalities developing to their own device(s) to "nut it our for themselves"?

Why do you think there is no evidence of this?

On the contrary, I do think there is evidence of this. Prior to the current epoch re the unfolding of the universe, there was no evidence of this. Only as the Earth had been formed, was there then able to be provided, evidence for this.

And why do you think the Creator left us on our own?

I don't think that. I think that of your beliefs which you claim to be true.

I think the creator-mind is a reflected in the planet mind. It is the planet mind which was enabled to use the planet material to build forms and breath life (its own mind) into those forms.
In my thinking this is what is true, I cannot deny in any way how close to us the creator mind actually is re the planet mind.

The "closeness" (and subsequent intimacy) of the human mind to the planet mind is that they are the very same mind. One cannot get much "closer" than that to the creator-mind.

One theistic answer (largely from the Christianity sector of Theism) tell it that it was some type of "punishment"

I don’t think that is the Biblical answer and, therefore, not a truly Christ-ian one.

Even so, one who thinks oneself "truly Christ-ian" has the burden to carry in having to explain why so many Christians peddle such an untrue belief that we are here on this planet as a punishment.

but it could just as easily be seen to be something that said creator-mind had itself gone through, and it wanted to grow human personalities which could experience the same and learn from that, what the creator-mind already knew but did not want to simply "install" that knowledge into the human form, because "human personalities" could not successfully be grown in an environment which ignorance wasn't a contributing factor.
Thus, the human personalities could only be grown in an environment which provided for complete ignorance - starting at "square one" - "blank slate" et al.
Thus, we have a competent explanation for why the universe is designed the precise way and manner in which it is.

But even this is, logically, installing the knowledge, albeit through a more winding road.

Nonetheless, (or because of) not out of the question or able to be removed from/denied from being on the table of discussion

But isn't the important moral of that story that defeating the Nazi (re that entirely atheistic world) was seen to be the optimal choice (of path) to take to preserve something(s) considered precious and in need of maximum protection?

On atheism, that story is pure fiction, though.

Yes. I assumed we were speaking a mind-experiment re imagining how such a fiction would unfold, and perhaps agree therein.

That’s the point I’m making and it is very important to this discussion. There is no optimal choice of path, nothing objectively precious, nothing requiring protection. We were just stronger than the Nazis, so our desires won out.

Likewise, the theist world is also pure fiction.
The overall take-way is that "we" (the stronger) were not just Christians/theists (remembering that the Nazi proclamations were theistic in nature declaring to be a vessel of Gods will). Atheists too, resented the evolution and actions of Nazism and added their strength and support to defeating it.

Why can't it be said that giving maximum protection to life (something precious in this universe re earth and its seemingly being an anomaly) without consigning a "good" or "evil" declaration to/over the activity?

“Precious” is a value word (i.e., good/evil), so you’ve got to take that out if you want to do away with good/evil. And then it’s just one path in life, equal to not giving max protection to life.

My intent is not to remove the values but to examine them.

Theists and atheists both claim that life is precious.

From the perspective of the God mind reflected in the Earth mind re the evidence, there have been many extinction events, none of which adversely affected or were able to wipe out the ability for the Earth mind to rebuild.

Giving protection to life is not an overall problem the Earth mind has to deal with. One could say that She is like a jealous mother who thinks of Her creations as part of Herself and precious for that.
Yet, at the same time, She is able to let go of those forms (allow them to become extinct) and get on with creating other designs and trying those out for size.

Even adding into the equation events which are beyond Her control (such as the believed in asteroid strike which caused the great lizards to become extinct) can be held/seen by Her to being serendipitous as something the Universe was telling Her...along the lines of "its nigh time you started using your creative abilities to do something different" - a task She was obviously equally to the challenge in achieving.

In what way would either an earth (planet) mind or an overall creator of the universe mind see these atheistic-based results as something "detrimental" to their overall "plans", since those "plans" are claimed to be for the same purpose/result?

That purpose being...
"To preserve the anomaly and see where that will take "us" in relation to what is out there in the rest of the universe."

If that is the purpose, to just see where things go, with no good or bad, then sure, but I think a Creator is more loving if the overall plan is to take us to goodness. Why is seeing where things go better?

This is where the human personality is required to understand itself, in relation to - not only the experience of life on Earth, but also to the experience of death on Earth. The two go hand in hand, the one leading to the next...

The universe is not designed with the human personalities happiness in mind, or for that matter planet-minds happiness.
This is not to argue that temporary happiness cannot be found or experienced by human/planet mind(s).

Happiness therefore will not be found "out there" no matter how long/intently/hopefully minds look for it.

For happiness to truly be found by the human personality, such finding will be achieved by going within and connecting with the God-Mind (aforementioned) intimately.

Currently there is a push through physical science and its investors, to find a way of increasing the life-span of a human personality. Ideas to do with this are the investigation of integrating human form (specifically minds) with machine technology (transhumanism) - the motivation being that this will provide happiness (at least in having found a way to not die).

imo the better option is not to involve human personalities and just build AI and have the machine do all the work as the machine won't be searching for happiness out there, but simply assisting in transforming the stuff of the universe into a machine.

What use such a machine would be to human personalities and their happiness in the far distant future may or may not be relevant.

Even so, the idea of being able to integrate human minds with machinery is producing something of happiness to those who were unable to to use a computer due to immobility issues, and with machine chips successfully integrated with their brains, are now more easily able to express their mindfulness to other human personalities, through the machine medium/medium of the machinery.

Since all humans are within bodies which force us to be agents of morality (we have no ability to exercise "free will" re that) we only have the ability to act morally or immorally (or a mix of both) and either in a theistic world (one you might also want to briefly describe) or an atheistic world, the results will inevitably be the same. Life will be preserved.

But they don’t produce the same results. For instance, Judeo-Christian beliefs led people to rescue deformed babies and females cruelly discarded by ancient Roman society. Those aren't the same results.

Your example isn't capturing the full extent of what I am arguing. Indeed one might argue that the ancient Roman society were concerned with the quality of life such babies and females would have, and that the more merciful option was to "discard" them. Also, how is it that the Christians managed to get their hands on these children? It must have been because the ancient Roman society weren't "cruelly discarded" at all, as the even more "merciful" thing to have done would have been to kill those children outright.

Also, it must be mentioned that ancient Roman society were drinking the water which was channeled through lead, and using lead to make the utensils they ate from. WE need to factor that into their overall behaviour, but even so, we are not free to make judgment calls about who were in the right and who were in the wrong. Life might well be precious, and discarding those who would be less likely to feel that way about their own life, isn't necessarily an abomination, motivated by ill-intent.

We get the same results today because atheists have been formed by Christianity. Even when they disagree with Christians on specific moral issues, it is because of principles instilled in them by Christianity. Atheists cannot get objective moral values from their worldview, they must borrow them.

Generally I would agree that many atheists are indeed still lumbered by the baggage they inherited from their time being Christians/belong to one Christian sect or another and that those beliefs do affect the manner and preference in which they argue their case et al.

Thus, the "problem" cannot be directly related to one or the other (theism or atheism) but the fact that there are both and they are at war with one another and this spills out into the environment as an actually.

No, we don’t act out of war with one another. Some theists act morally the way they do because of their beliefs and upbringing. Atheists and some theists act morally the way they do because of their upbringing in spite of their beliefs.

The "acting out war" comment in context was not arguing that the war is only physical. It is based in philosophical differences which have yet to be sorted, and the consequence does spill out into the environment.
Case in point, the current war between Ukraine and Russia and America's recent decision to fund vast amounts of money and resource to support the one against the actions of the other - all traceable to the fact that atheism and theism are (and have been for centuries) locking heads.

Thus, the "solution" is to compromise and build a world together that recognises the same agenda (Preserve LIFE) and therein, identify all that which is the biggest barrier to achieving said goal and cease our support of those.

The underlying reason for debate is not simply to beat down opposition, but rather to use the it to nut things out altogether.

Yes, we should work together towards a goal of mutual good, but what we believe about truth informs what we think is good, so we've got to do both; seek common ground and challenge each other with our disagreements in pursuit of truth, not just cooperation. Unless atheism is true, then there is no "should" that determines what goals we each would be rational to follow.

Neither atheism or theism has been shown to be true and after all these centuries humanity might have to bite the bullet (so to speak) and accept that there is no way forward down that path.

It may have to be the case then, that we drop the labels altogether, cease with the blame-game and focus on simply exhibiting our inner selves into the exterior world.

But - as I mentioned earlier - even if humanity chose to continue down that path and even if the result of that is an extinction event...life goes on as far as the panet mind designer is concerned, and not only that, but what was learned through the creation of humanity will serve as a means of providing data which can go towards the creation of another type of form.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #39]

I feel like we may be getting far from the intent of this thread and its becoming a bit unwieldy. There are many things I’d love to talk with you about in what you’ve said. But I feel that should be in another thread and one at a time. Would you like to start a new thread/PM to where we could do that?

As far as this thread goes, what is your overall view on morality’s connection to this Earth mind worldview? Is good/evil objective or subjective?

As to critiques of what I am mainly claiming in relation to this thread, I saw this:

Likewise, the theist world is also pure fiction.
The overall take-way is that "we" (the stronger) were not just Christians/theists (remembering that the Nazi proclamations were theistic in nature declaring to be a vessel of Gods will). Atheists too, resented the evolution and actions of Nazism and added their strength and support to defeating it.

By “pure fiction” I wasn’t making a comment on atheism itself being false. I was saying that if atheism is true, then morality, having an optimal path, something being precious (not just liked) are fictions. Under atheism’s own beliefs, morality is a fiction.

That’s not the same with (some) theism. If those theisms are true, morality is not a pure fiction, but actual reality.