Can you be good without God?

[Ed1wolf]

You don't seem to understand that the Christian god does the exact same things as Stalin and worse and a lot more too.

But since you have no objective standard to judge Him then you cannot actually say that what He did was wrong. You can just say it makes you feel bad or upset, but that is meaningless without an objective standard.

dw: Stalin is not an example of why we need the Christian god, because he acted just like the Christian god by killing burning raping and burning people he did not approve of simply because he wanted to. You also seem to not understand that regardless of how screwed up Stalin was that does not mean morality comes from god, it's a completely different topic.

First, the Christian God never did any of those things simply because He wanted to (He never raped anyone btw, though He has killed people), in fact He did not want to kill anyone, but because He is a just God, He must punish sin and the wages of sin is death. But actually Stalin IS an example of why we need to base our nations on God's moral principles and laws that is the very reason that Communism came into existence because the Russian aristocracy rejected the teachings of Christ and did not try to help the poor and the Russian Orthdox church failed to teach them those teachings. You can tell that the nations that come closest to being founded on Christian principles have the greatest freedom (such as America) and are usually among the most successful nations even if they presently fail to acknowledge where their nation derived those principles from.

dw: You seem committed to believing in a Christian moral system because you think it would protect you from people like Stalin but it actually does the same things, and you seem committed to declaring that all peoples morals come from your god too... when in fact every last one of us are morally superior to the Christian god because none of us will ever do the horrifying things he does.

Yes, see above about nations that are based on Christian principles. There is no such thing as moral superiority if there is no objective moral standard. While God does do things that cause great fear and horror to the guilty, He shows great love and mercy to those who turn to Him for salvation and they are truly blessed as well as those nations that abide by His laws and principles, ie all of Western civilization.

dw: It's a completely separate topic but the Christian god is the worst thing of all, it's not the source of our goodness or morals.

Fraid not, almost everything good about western civilization is the result of Christians and Christianity, IOW the Christian God working thru His people.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Ah, but no. You said "you can measure good/evil by any standard you wish." In that case, you're just arbitrarily defining good and evil based on your own opinions. How do you know your opinion is right? What makes your opinion more valid than someone else's?

Oh for pete sakes... listen to what I'm saying.

Intersubjectivity isn't just one person's opinion. Entire societies determine good and evil based on any subjective ethical criteria they wish. Moral opinions are "right" or "valid" only in the sense that they conform to the criteria. In terms of being arbitrary, human societies have typically evolved to value (call good) actions that reduce suffering or increase joy. It's a coping mechanism for societies. So while not being objective, moral pronouncements aren't completely arbitrary in the sense you're suggesting either.

What you're engaging in is a false dichotomy. It's not the case that either morality is objective and rigid or subjective and anything goes and everyone has a completely different opinion. No society operates that way.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Oh, how you play with words!

What playing with words?

fre: Was it not "really" wrong? Or was it not "objectively" wrong? Is this the same? Are feelings and personal judgements "not real"?

If I said that my friend Freodin subjectively exists what you say? I think you would say that my friend was probably imaginary, ie he only exists in my head. So it is with morality if is subjective.

fre: Can you only be "punished" for something that is "objectively" wrong?

If you want to be punished justly and not for something just arbitrarily made up by someone who is upset.

fre: And what about all this Stalinesque stuff that was alledgedly done on divine command? Amalekites... objectively right or wrong?

Stalin slaughtered people just because of who they were, God only kills those who do evil or will cause evil in the future. That is what objective morality requires.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Again, you imagine I am trying to convince you. I'm not. I'm just telling you the truth and you are fighting against the truth.

And there it is... The "I don't convince you, God does." implication. The line that theists use when called out on the fact that they aren't really providing any logical arguments at all. And you've already thrown out the "Oh yeah? You'll get yours in the end" canard. So you've covered the typical nonsensical bases. it's like you're trying to live up to the illogical theist stereotype.

Have you ever taken Philosophy? Because you're really not doing a good job of convincing anyone in the Philosophy forum...

God's word says that you will consider truth to be foolish in your ears.

When or if God opens your ears and gives sight to your blind eyes you will repent and be aghast at your lack of reason. Until then, you will continue to imagine that you are in control.

You're the one with the lack of reason. Unless you're using some bizarro world definition of reason which means the opposite of what philosophers define the word to be...

 

[Davian]

Again, you imagine I am trying to convince you. I'm not.

Then you are trolling this forum, in every sense of the word.

I'm just telling you the truth and you are fighting against the truth.

I do not accept your religious opinion as truth.

God's word says

...the bible writers wrote...

that you will consider truth to be foolish in your ears.

I give the writers of the Bible credit for knowing that unevidenced religious opinion would be dismissed as such thousands of years in the future. If only they had had access to some higher power of some sort that could have given those future religionists - like yourself - something to work with.

When or if God opens your ears and gives sight to your blind eyes you will repent and be aghast at your lack of reason. Until then, you will continue to imagine that you are in control.

Then in terms of belief, your [hypothetical] god is holding me accountable for something beyond my control, which is morally bankrupt.

 

[Hikarifuru]

But since you have no objective standard to judge Him then you cannot actually say that what He did was wrong. You can just say it makes you feel bad or upset, but that is meaningless without an objective standard.



First, the Christian God never did any of those things simply because He wanted to (He never raped anyone btw, though He has killed people), in fact He did not want to kill anyone, but because He is a just God, He must punish sin and the wages of sin is death. But actually Stalin IS an example of why we need to base our nations on God's moral principles and laws that is the very reason that Communism came into existence because the Russian aristocracy rejected the teachings of Christ and did not try to help the poor and the Russian Orthdox church failed to teach them those teachings. You can tell that the nations that come closest to being founded on Christian principles have the greatest freedom (such as America) and are usually among the most successful nations even if they presently fail to acknowledge where their nation derived those principles from.




Yes, see above about nations that are based on Christian principles. There is no such thing as moral superiority if there is no objective moral standard. While God does do things that cause great fear and horror to the guilty, He shows great love and mercy to those who turn to Him for salvation and they are truly blessed as well as those nations that abide by His laws and principles, ie all of Western civilization.



Fraid not, almost everything good about western civilization is the result of Christians and Christianity, IOW the Christian God working thru His people.

I can and will say Stalin is wrong, because that's what I believe, the same as you believe that. I have repeated ad nausem to you, objective morality does not exist and is not necessary to have morals.

The Christian system is displayed within the bible and that system tortures, burns, rapes and starves people. I have given scripture after scripture already to display this. Stalin is no worse than Christianity. Your god is said to murder and burn far more people than Stalin ever did. Your did cause rape in Isaiah 13:14-16 and yes those actions were based on his desire to respond that way.

The USA and other places are secular governments that protects us from religious oppression and religion being mixed with the government. A big reason that the USA etc are good, is because we are protected from religious laws being made. Not because religions are good.

 

[Hikarifuru]

Yes, I mind. I don't trust your depravity to send Stalin types and other Atheist haters my way. Afterall, more people have been murdered by atheists than any other group in the history of humankind. [emoji63]

haha... you think that posting a picture of yourself might get you killed? Come on, I just want to see what you look like.

 

[Davian]

You wouldn't listen in any case. Your ears are deaf and your eyes are blind. It takes God miraculously and graciously healing you. I just speak truth and let God change you. I'm not going to go about trying to manipulate you into an emotional reaction. Just the truth, whether you like it or not.

This is not the forum to evangelize, or to practice apologetics. I do not consider your religious opinion to be truth.

 

[Freodin]

If I said that my friend Freodin subjectively exists what you say? I think you would say that my friend was probably imaginary, ie he only exists in my head. So it is with morality if is subjective.

Asserting the objectivity of one concept does not do anything to demonstrate the objectivity of another, unrelated concept. Playing with words.

If you want to be punished justly and not for something just arbitrarily made up by someone who is upset.

Adding an aditional qualifier that wasn't stated nor implied in a question doesn't answer a question. Playing with words.

Stalin slaughtered people just because of who they were, God only kills those who do evil or will cause evil in the future. That is what objective morality requires.

No, in fact this is what objective morality excludes.

 

[quatona]

If I said that my friend Freodin subjectively exists what you say? I think you would say that my friend was probably imaginary, ie he only exists in my head. So it is with morality if is subjective.

Except that on this side of the table nobody even expects morality to be an entity existing out there. We naturally understand morality to be a human concept serving human goals - similar to, say, aesthetics.
That´s why this entire argument from consequence ("without a God there can´t be a God given morality or 'cosmic purpose' or 'ultimate purpose') leaves us so unimpressed: We never expected there was, and when we say "morality" we never meant to invoke anything "ultimate", "objective" or divine.
The absence of such a "God given purpose" would leave humanity exactly where we find it: (almost) universally agreeing on some moral issues, disagreeing on others. Negotiating, reconsidering, trying to get to workable agreeements. That some people in this process claim to have divine support doesn´t give them a special status.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Tell me about it after your conversation with the judge.

Thanks for your contribution to the discussion.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Why is this thread still going? We've already answered the question: yes, you can be good without gods.

 

[quatona]

You guys make it sound as though "good" and "bad" are meaningless, unless you make them rocket-science.

When we see someone painfully drowning, any person gifted with only moderate empathy will say "this is bad". That´s not rocket science, we don´t need no stinking "cosmic purpose" for saying it (and we are neither explicitly nor implicitly referring to such). We call it as we see it. We don´t want this to happen, it´s "bad". That´s how this word is used (outside self-serving philosophical mind games, that is).
For those of you who aren´t gifted with any empathy, you just have to imagine yourselves in that situation (or be subjected to it), and you will agree "drowning painfully is bad".
This is the basis for our morality: We conclude that intentionally subjecting someone to this "bad" experience is "bad". Again, no rocket science, no abstract philosophy, no stinking "cosmic purpose" required. Human needs, human feelings, human experience - that´s all.
And since your scenario says "without a God", this is entirely sufficient for a basis in this scenario. Again: No "cosmic purpose" required, so far.
(Now, the scenario where there is a God or a cosmic purpose which happens to postulate that human suffering is a "good" thing - that would be an entirely different issue.)

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

And still... that only means that there is no way to objectively measure good and evil. Does there need to be one?
.

No. The point is this, without a god, good and evil cannot truly exist. All we have is a system based on popular opinion. We all know that popular opinion changes over time so what was good/evil yesterday may not be so today There is really nothing wrong with that if it has worked for this long.

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No. The point is this, without a god, good and evil cannot truly exist.

Why?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Why?

Good and evil cannot "truly" or "absolutely " exist because no "true or absolute" standard would exist to declare it so. All we have left is a popular consensus of what's best for the greater good. Everyone is different, every culture is different. So when it comes to morality and what is good or evil, there is no black or white. Just shades of grey. So for every evil or wicked act that you can think of, somebody somewhere will disagree or think of a situation that would make that evil thing good.

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

 

[MennoSota]

In other words, you are just a parrot who repeats what he has heard and doesn't really care about philosophical conversation. You are in the wrong thread.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I am stating God's view of humamnity. There is no other view that is correct. There is only one Sovereign King and you and I are not he.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Good and evil cannot "truly" or "absolutely " exist because no "true or absolute" standard would exist to declare it so. All we have left is a popular consensus of what's best for the greater good. Everyone is different, every culture is different. So when it comes to morality and what is good or evil, there is no black or white. Just shades of grey. So for every evil or wicked act that you can think of, somebody somewhere will disagree or think of a situation that would make that evil thing good.

Sent from my SM-N915V using Tapatalk

Your epistemology is doomed to swallow up Christianity in its gaping nihilism. All human beings have are opinions, and if all human judgment is merely about "popular consensus", nothing can be known, including the existence of God and what God has allegedly said.

The only way out is to say that opinions are not all alike. Some are better founded on logic and evidence than others. So, if there is an objective standard of ethics (no matter its source), even if the standard is not known with absolute precision, not all opinions are on an equal footing and it is possible to avoid the intellectual chaos that you threaten.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

I am stating God's view of humamnity. There is no other view that is correct. There is only one Sovereign King and you and I are not he.

 

[Eudaimonist]

From one of the board introduction threads:

Philosophy: Critical examination of the rational grounds of our most fundamental beliefs and logical analysis of the basic concepts employed in the expression of such beliefs. Philosophy may also be defined as reflection on the varieties of human experience, or as the rational, methodical, and systematic consideration of the topics that are of greatest concern to humanity. -- Concise Encyclopedia

Philosophy of religion is a philosophical study of religion which seeks to discuss questions regarding the nature of religion as a whole, including the nature and existence of God, rather than examining or arguing against the theology of a particular belief system. The philosophy of religion is rational, critical thought and exploration of general religious themes and concepts. Philosophy of religion is focused on investigating religion itself, rather than the truth of any particular religion.


eudaimonia,

Mark