system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Morality based on religion cannot expect to be taken seriously.

If your foundation for a moral claim is based on a religious belief, then you have not met the burden of proof and as such you cannot expect others to take your claim seriously. For example, you shouldn't be allowed to harm others only because your religion allows it, defines you as superior to the victim or even encourages you to do so. In reality religion has been used in the past and is used to this day to justify violence.

Genuine question: How can I count on religion to provide a just moral framework? Additionally, what is keeping me from defining and practicing my own religion in order to justify violence or make other moral claims? What makes my new religion less valid than, say, Christianity? The other religions have holy books to outline their moral framework, but these don't provide any proof for their moral claims. I could just as well come up with my own book and claim that some transcendent power granted me the wisdom to do so. That does not amount to proof.

To me, it seems crystal clear that a person making moral claims based on religion cannot expect these to be taken seriously.

&#x200B;

EDIT: 

Some misunderstandings that arised:

* **I claim that** morality based on religion cannot expect to be taken seriously. **I do not claim that** morality based on religion can never be taken seriously.
* I’m not arguing for any one moral philosophy, I am merely arguing, that since religious premises can neither be proven nor disproven, nor even debated sincerely, they should not be the foundation one provides in social discourse.
* I respect theological theorists. They can obviously be just as intelligent, intellectual, logical and systemic. I merely have a problem with premises that cannot be disputed by worldly facts since they hinder the moral social discourse .
* I do not expect (nor do I think I believe in) moral objectivity.

I encourage you to read through the other posts, I tried to answer a lot of them.
gpt
What would you determine was a legitimate source of a moral framework? The obvious alternative to religion is a some of philosophy  but if you boil those down to their basic tenants (often something amounting to "other people and their lives have value and deserve moral consideration) they aren't really provable either.