Can you be good without God?

[Dave Ellis]

All serious scholars, including most atheist scholars, disagree with you.

lol, since when does the opinion of historians or other educated people matter to you?

 

[Dave Ellis]

There is only God's moral system that is relevant. All others are cheap imitations.

So what is your gods moral system?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Good and evil are defined by God, in His word. Yeshua, Jesus, is proof.

How is Yeshua proof? I don't see how that is relevant to defining good or evil?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Richard Carrier is a serious atheist Ph.D. historian who has studied the matter in depth, and agrees with him.


eudaimonia,

Mark

There are a number of others as well, however I didn't plan on derailing this thread into a "did Jesus really exist" debate.

I threw that bone out there because all thread long he's ignored or disputed the scientific or historical evidence that discredits his opinion, I knew for sure if I tossed that one out there, he'd dispute it using either some kind of scientific or historical justification. It's a way to circle around and basically show the hypocrisy of his position. He's all for mainstream opinion when it agrees with him, and disregards it when it's not convenient for his position.

 

[South Bound]

A: No, you cannot. God is the definition of good and in order to be good without God you'd have to have good coming from outside of itself, a logical impossibility. God is the source of good and therefore everything that God proclaims and does is good by definition. Nothing morally good can come from any source outside of God and therefore nothing can be morally good unless God defines it as such. Human beings do not define what moral goodness is; God does.

God knows the true difference between good and evil because God is, by definition, the most intelligent being that there is. Everyone else is of less intelligence, so we should trust what God says about good and evil above everyone else.

Thoughts?

Because of our fallen nature, we're incapable of being good with or without God. God saves us in spite of our sinfulness. He doesn't make us sinless. It's a concept within Christianity called "simul justus et peccator". We will be one day, but are not yet.

 

[Dave Ellis]

The bible also says donkeys talk and that daughters deserved to be burned to death for having sex, who cares what your bible says?

But, what's immoral about burning people to death for having sex, or women being forced to marry their rapists?

Sounds like it's all part of gods holy morality, which is clearly superior to my own.

/facepalm

 

[Hikarifuru]

Because of our fallen nature, we're incapable of being good with or without God. God saves us in spite of our sinfulness. He doesn't make us sinless. It's a concept within Christianity called "simul justus et peccator". We will be one day, but are not yet.

Considering that the god himself did worse things than anyone I have ever met in my life and worse things than I will ever do, this should be challenged. Gods that make parents eat their children and send snakes to kill people who gripe and who tell fathers to burn their daughters alive do not get a vote on morality. I am far superior the the bible god in terms of morality.

 

[MennoSota]

Let's explore this "moral system" of yours. If I slaughter everyone in my neighbourhood, can I still go to "Heaven", in your theology?

What does the Bible, God's word, say?
How is a person pardoned by God, the Judge?

 

[MennoSota]

If we lack morality without god then without god I could rape you and it wouldn't be wrong, if what you lack is the ability to say rape is wrong... then you're just not very intelligent or you have no self esteem, its not that you lack morality.

Everything is meaningless without God. Do the molecules that bind people together care about rape or lying? Are they concerned if they form cancer cells?
Without God, any attempts at morality are mere illusions you create to define your own parameters. You live in your own matrix.

 

[MennoSota]

Because the positive benefits, or the negative consequences are objective. Someone's personal opinion on the matter is irrelevant to what is objectively beneficial or harmful.

For example, if I believed with all my heart that drinking poison was a benefit to myself, that's not going to stop the objective reality that the poison will kill me, which is clearly harmful to myself.

Helping people overcome psychological problems, is clearly a benefit to the people he is helping. Likewise, killing millions is objectively harmful to the people who are being killed.

That's consequential ethics. What are the consequences of a given act? Based on that, we can judge Stalin to be evil, whereas Larnievc is good (or is at least carrying out a good act in this situation, as we don't know much else about him).

You can only determine objective good or bad after the action has taken place. Even then, your "objective" conclusion is different than the person next to you. You have no true objective form of measurement.

 

[Hikarifuru]

Everything is meaningless without God. Do the molecules that bind people together care about rape or lying? Are they concerned if they form cancer cells?
Without God, any attempts at morality are mere illusions you create to define your own parameters. You live in your own matrix.

Whether god exists or not doesn't change that you don't want to be raped and you know that, you're the one providing that life is meaningless not me. You know you care about being raped, stop playing a silly game of who can say the weirdest crap.

 

[MennoSota]

Whether god exists or not doesn't change that you don't want to be raped and you know that, you're the one providing that life is meaningless not me. You know you care about being raped, stop playing a silly game of who can say the weirdest crap.

To molecules, rape is a meaningless thing. Only if there is a God who created you is there right or wrong.

You attest to God's moral law if you call rape immoral.

 

[Hikarifuru]

To molecules, rape is a meaningless thing. Only if there is a God who created you is there right or wrong.

You attest to God's moral law if you call rape immoral.

You're acting like it was god that made you opposed to rape and everyone knows it's not true. You're just saying stuff that sounds mysterious and brilliant too you but stupid to everyone else. There is nothing that could change how you feel about rape and that's a testimony that it has nothing to do with god.

Rape really hurts, just like fire and being stabbed and having your food stolen and starving to death, it's really simple, you don't need a god to not want someone to rape you.

Yes our genes do disapprove of being raped, because it destroys us and destroys our ability to survive and all our security mechanisms.

 

[Hikarifuru]

To molecules, rape is a meaningless thing. Only if there is a God who created you is there right or wrong.

You attest to God's moral law if you call rape immoral.

That you think your religion is the only reason rape is wrong just makes you a sociopath.

 

[Hikarifuru]

To molecules, rape is a meaningless thing. Only if there is a God who created you is there right or wrong.

You attest to God's moral law if you call rape immoral.

that is nonsense, if you think rape would be ok if your god said so then you probably don't need to be around kids.

But we can also look at your bible and see that your god actually sent rapists to rape women in Isaiah 13:14-16. Your god condoned and caused rape. He most certainly isn't the reason we know its wrong.

 

[MennoSota]

That you think your religion is the only reason rape is wrong just makes you a sociopath.

You refuse to acknowledge that you are nothing more than molecules bonded together. What meaning is there in your existence, other than to have the molecular bond dissolve in just a short time from now?
You are displaying a God-given grasp of morality in this conversation.
Either acknowledge your Creator or admit you are meaningless.

 

[MennoSota]

You're acting like it was god that made you opposed to rape and everyone knows it's not true. You're just saying stuff that sounds mysterious and brilliant too you but stupid to everyone else. There is nothing that could change how you feel about rape and that's a testimony that it has nothing to do with god.

Rape really hurts, just like fire and being stabbed and having your food stolen and starving to death, it's really simple, you don't need a god to not want someone to rape you.

Yes our genes do disapprove of being raped, because it destroys us and destroys our ability to survive and all our security mechanisms.

It is God who gives you the understanding that rape is wrong. His moral law is within you, even if you refuse to acknowledge him in your life.

 

[MennoSota]

that is nonsense, if you think rape would be ok if your god said so then you probably don't need to be around kids.

But we can also look at your bible and see that your god actually sent rapists to rape women in Isaiah 13:14-16. Your god condoned and caused rape. He most certainly isn't the reason we know its wrong.

God has never given approval of rape.

God does let sinners sin, which is what those verses reveal. He is not obligated to act immediately upon our lawbreaking. If He did, we would all be in Hell at this moment and not conversing. Take that as an act of mercy on your behalf and repent before it's too late.

 

[bhsmte]

You are free to be wrong.

Ditto

 

[MennoSota]

Ditto

If God has spoken, He cannot be wrong.
I, like you, can be wrong. But, God is always right. When I quote God's word, He is right. When you go against God's word, you are wrong.