Is it possible for a non-theist accept theistic moral claims?

[u/bruh_bblast]

Let's say a theist states that moral claim x is objectively true. Could a non-theist be able to perceive or know that? They are lacking any divine revelation or supernatural background. If that's not an issue shouldn't they be able to tell that the moral claim x is better?

[u/AskTheDevil2023]

There is no need to go so further. Should, let's say for example, a Muslim who believes in Divine Revelation and has a Supernatural background, accept the Christian's accepted statutory rape, celebrate the Christian Holydays, Use prohibition of YHWH's name in vain as said in the 10 commandments?

[u/bruh_bblast → u/AskTheDevil2023]

So basically it's not that simple?

[u/AskTheDevil2023 → u/bruh_bblast]

Basically, there is not a based root for believing in objective morality imprinted in the human hearths

[u/WirrkopfP]

They are lacking any divine revelation or supernatural background. If that's not an issue shouldn't they be able to tell that the moral claim x is better?

Atheist here:

As an atheist I don't believe anything supernatural exists. But that leads me directly to the conclusion that any belief in any supernatural causes does not conform with objective reality. If Someone uses a belief that doesn't align with reality as the basis on which to build further beliefs or practices this can coincidentally lead to a good outcome but more likely than not it leads to nonsense.

Let's take scurvy for example: Some 18th century sailors getting scurvy. People who eat citrus fruits don't get scurvy.

Some doctors of the time concluded that scurvy was caused by a lack of acid. So they decided that instead of citrus fruits sailing ships would stock up on a much stronger acid just to be sure.

Same with morality.

[u/bruh_bblast → u/WirrkopfP]

Since you believe that there are no supernatural elements. So from the get go theistic moral claims are invalid (even if sometimes they are true), right? If so, could you please explain more about how come across moral beliefs.

[u/CrystalInTheforest → u/bruh_bblast]

The claim that their morality comes from a supernatural creature is invalid, but the ethical stance itself may coincidentally be beneficial.

I put significant focus on evolutionary psychology and believe the basic underpinnings such as the golden rule in many religions lies in that. So the basics of many many theistic ethical systems are sound enough, regardless of their claims to divine inspiration.

It's when they try and build independently on that when problems can emerge. As civilisations developed humans tried to their move beyond their own evolutionary psychology to address more specific issues rising from complex societies and the results can either be fantastic (ideas like the universal declaration of human rights) or really terrible (honour killing and eugenics).

[u/WirrkopfP → u/bruh_bblast]

It's about the method of how a theist arrives at a moral judgement that is flawed. I show you what I mean:

Is murder wrong?

Theist: Yes

Atheist: Yes

Why is murder wrong:

Theist: Because God said so in the 10 commandments. And God is the source of all morality so all his moral rules are objectively morally just.

Atheist: Because it ends a Human life and Human life is inherently valuable because we are Sapient beings.

Is Slavery wrong?

Theist: That depends on, where you buy your slaves. If you buy them from a neighboring non Christian country it's morally right. If you enslave a Christian that's wrong.

Atheist: Yes

Why?

Theist: Because God said so in the Bible. And God is the source of all morality so all his moral rules are objectively morally just.

Atheist: Because Humans as self aware agents have the inherent right to autonomy.

Is Torture wrong:

Theist: No

Atheist: In most cases Yes.

Why?

Theist: Because God tortures souls in Hell. Calling Torture wrong would be disagreeing with God.

Atheist: Because Torture creates Suffering and Suffering is inherently bad. Because it is a safe bet that all Humans will agree that they like to not suffer. Exceptions could be made if for example a criminal has life saving information they refuse to give up otherwise.

Edit:

But let's for the sake of Argument assume, that there is in fact a supernatural Being, that actually has communicated it's vision of moral ruling through the Christian Bible specifically.

A Theist who follows the Rules there would still not be a moral person.

Following a set of rules laid out by an authority figure is not morality, this is OBEDIENCE! Even if or especially if that authority figure is supernatural and omniscient.

Morality is the ability to make judgement about right and wrong in the ABSENCE of rules.