Does morality exist without God?

Girder of Loins said:

Well, without God, where would morals have come from?

Click to expand...

From human beings wanting to live and work together. Any society forms morals and ethics if stays around for any length of time.

Girder of Loins said:

Well, without God, where would morals have come from?

Click to expand...

The requirements of life as a human being.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Religion is simply the quest for goodness with an ulterior motive.

Lack of religion is the quest for goodness for the sake of being good.

As all who should by now have assimilated, even with or without Religion/belief/faith,
science as helpful as it is, cannot stop the conscience of individuals i.e; procreation.

Where will the new born`s live, what will they work as, who will they then follow.

Every person with or without belief, has a God head, so a thread that beggars an answer to morality without god is quite absurd and is a parody from eugenics.

The answer is yes; but the future of such a type could find the choices of his past quite regrettable, unfortunately.

Tzaousios said:

Why would I apostasize or confess atheism since I am not an apostate or an atheist?

Click to expand...

This is a strawman argument. I’m not asking or expecting you to relinquish your religious beliefs. I’m guessing that it is extremely unlikely you would ever relinquish your religious beliefs. I’m just asking you to show us that your beliefs are reasonable. Just show us that you have sound evidence or sound arguments to support them, that’s all.

I did not evade anything and have remained true to my purpose.

Click to expand...

I’ll leave it up to individual readers here to judge whether they think this statement is true.

Thank you for stating your presupposition. Now there definitely is no reason for anyone to fulfill your rhetorical "requests."

Click to expand...

This is a non sequitur. It doesn’t logically follow from what I said. Do you think that because you don’t believe the modern-day Santa Claus is real there is no reason why those who may claim it is real should support their claims with sound evidence or sound arguments? Imagine those same people also claim that without a belief in Santa Claus you are immoral or that morality couldn’t exist without a Santa Claus. Don’t you think it would be reasonable for them to show that Santa Claus exists before you believe their claims?

Since here you mean Christians, the question is not applicable.

Click to expand...

This appears to be a case of special pleading. Why should Christians be exempt from justifying their claims, particularly when those claims are highly implausible?

Translation of rhetoric: You will accept,

1. Apostasy
2. Confession of atheism
3. Religious belief scientifically recreated in a test tube

Click to expand...

This is another strawman argument. Can’t you compose a post that isn’t riddled with logical fallacies? Look, all I’m asking you to do is to stop evading my questions and show that your religious beliefs are reasonable. If you can’t do that then please have the intellectual honesty to admit it instead of behaving evasively.

chris4243 said:

Feel free to prove anytime that the universe is objective and consistent as required for the scientific method to be applicable.

Click to expand...

The fact that science works and produces consistent results strongly suggests that the universe is dealing fairly with us. The fact that we have derived physical laws strongly suggests this. Even our everyday experience strongly suggests that the universe behaves reasonably consistently. When you pick up an object and drop it, it doesn’t sometimes hang in midair or move up, sideways or erratically for no sound reason. When scientists perform experiments, the results don’t change inconsistently simply because someone prays for a different outcome.

Of course, you could still deny that the universe behaves consistently, but to do so would be unreasonable.

Why should I be required to pretend to know things that I can't justify or prove?

Click to expand...

You aren’t required to do that. What I wonder is why religious believers do pretend to know things they can’t justify or prove.

God gave us morality. So if you're asking this in a literal way, then no. But a person who does not have God in their life can have just as much morality as a Christian. I think Christians just have more awareness of when they do something wrong. They don't make excuses based on their own opinions of what is right or wrong, instead they obey what God tells us, even when we don't like it.

3sigma said:

The fact that science works and produces consistent results strongly suggests that the universe is dealing fairly with us. The fact that we have derived physical laws strongly suggests this. Even our everyday experience strongly suggests that the universe behaves reasonably consistently. When you pick up an object and drop it, it doesn’t sometimes hang in midair or move up, sideways or erratically for no sound reason. When scientists perform experiments, the results don’t change inconsistently simply because someone prays for a different outcome.

Of course, you could still deny that the universe behaves consistently, but to do so would be unreasonable.

Click to expand...

Last I checked, the results of quantum randomness are not consistent at all. Consistent odds, yes, but not consistent results.

Now, you claim that when I pick up an object and drop it, it doesn’t sometimes hang in midair or move up, sideways or erratically for no sound reason. What if I said it did? Wouldn't you call me a liar/crazy and not believe it until it could be repeated again in the lab? If so, you would be using your presupposition that the universe behaves consistently as evidence that the universe behaves consistently -- hence a circular argument.

Because the scientific method will reject subjective and inconsistent results, the lack of scientific evidence of subjective and inconsistent results is not evidence against such things happening. I don't think anyone would argue that in large part the universe does behave objectively and consistently (excluding quantum mechanics), nor that there is good reason for science to restrict itself to only objective and consistent things. But I don't see how this is anything but an unjustified assumption to claim that the entire universe is always objective and consistent.

You aren’t required to do that. What I wonder is why religious believers do pretend to know things they can’t justify or prove.

Click to expand...

Well, I don't do that so I'll leave it to those who do to dodge that question.

Girder of Loins said:

Well, without God, where would morals have come from?

Click to expand...

From being homo sapiens. Even monkeys have morals, of a sort, and certainly chimps and gorillas exhibit very basic morality - and immorality - within their groups. Start with reasonably intelligent social animals (elephants, dolphins, wolves) and you always are able to detect a little altruistic behaviour here, a bit of indignation towards cheaters and food stealers there, a trend towards ostracising or punishing individuals who stray from standards of behaviour.

Humans, of course, have a much more nuanced and refined morality, but it is not different in kind to what is observed in other social mammals.

chris4243 said:

Last I checked, the results of quantum randomness are not consistent at all. Consistent odds, yes, but not consistent results.

Click to expand...

Depends entirely on your sample size. You can't predict the path of individual quantum objects, say, but the distribution of the paths of several thousand of them is quite consistent, predictable and reproducible.

Now, you claim that when I pick up an object and drop it, it doesn’t sometimes hang in midair or move up, sideways or erratically for no sound reason. What if I said it did? Wouldn't you call me a liar/crazy and not believe it until it could be repeated again in the lab? If so, you would be using your presupposition that the universe behaves consistently as evidence that the universe behaves consistently -- hence a circular argument.

Click to expand...

Uh, no, it's based on repeated observation that objects DON'T behave that way.

Because the scientific method will reject subjective and inconsistent results, the lack of scientific evidence of subjective and inconsistent results is not evidence against such things happening.

Click to expand...

And this is untrue, at least regarding inconsistent results. Theories can be falsified by single data points if they are correctly measured.

I don't think anyone would argue that in large part the universe does behave objectively and consistently (excluding quantum mechanics), nor that there is good reason for science to restrict itself to only objective and consistent things. But I don't see how this is anything but an unjustified assumption to claim that the entire universe is always objective and consistent.

Click to expand...

Again, it's based on observation. It's inductive, sure - but it will change the instant we have objective evidence that an exception exists.

Girder of Loins said:

Well, without God, where would morals have come from?

Click to expand...

Same place the morals of most of those claiming their morals come from their god, come from. Most people make their god in their own image, and this includes Jesus (for evidence, see pictures of "Jesus")

3sigma said:

This is a strawman argument. I’m not asking or expecting you to relinquish your religious beliefs. I’m guessing that it is extremely unlikely you would ever relinquish your religious beliefs. I’m just asking you to show us that your beliefs are reasonable. Just show us that you have sound evidence or sound arguments to support them, that’s all.

Click to expand...

No, it is not a strawman. You clothe your motive in the rhetoric of merely making "requests." However, because of your stated presupposition, there is no "evidence" that can be provided which would convince you of anything. You are asking Christians to condemn themselves in your eyes so that you can gain pleasure in denigrating them and bask in your own self-trumpeted glory.

3sigma said:

This is a non sequitur. It doesn’t logically follow from what I said.

Click to expand...

It is not a non sequitur. On the contrary, because of your stated presupposition, which is that you do not believe in God, and that Christians are deluded by their imaginations, it follows that there is no possible evidence that will convince you otherwise. All retorts, answers, responses by you flow from this presupposition.

Thus, you have created a rhetorical circle in which you can trap your prey and denigrate them to your heart's content.

3sigma said:

This appears to be a case of special pleading. Why should Christians be exempt from justifying their claims, particularly when those claims are highly implausible?

Click to expand...

It might appear so because of your wishful thinking, and because it would be useful to you in your rhetoric, however, there was no "special pleading" on my part.

Christians do not have to justify their beliefs to you because of your stated presupposition, not because of some special quality on their parts. You have chosen what you wish to believe and do not care a wit about the "evidence" Christians might bring to your "requests," except in so far as it provides fodder for your denigration pleasure.

3sigma said:

This is another strawman argument. Can’t you compose a post that isn’t riddled with logical fallacies? Look, all I’m asking you to do is to stop evading my questions and show that your religious beliefs are reasonable. If you can’t do that then please have the intellectual honesty to admit it instead of behaving evasively.

Click to expand...

Again, there is no strawman argument. Couldn't you find a different title to a logical fallacy to toss out instead of one you already used?

Once again, because of your stated and sincerely held presupposition, the implicit demands (not "requests") of your rhetoric is for Christians to apostasize, confess atheism, or recreate synthetic evidence of religious faith, belief, or the existence of the divine in test tubes. Your game is up, 3sigma.

Instead of all that crud, couldn't you have just said, "No, I can't provide the evidence you want. But the evidence is sufficient for me."? >.>

selfinflikted said:

Instead of all that crud, couldn't you have just said, "No, I can't provide the evidence you want. But the evidence is sufficient for me."? >.>

Click to expand...

What, you do not think that all "evidence" that Christians could possibly give to 3sigma's "requests" are automatically negated by his stated, sincerely held presupposition?

Tzaousios said:

What, you do not think that all "evidence" that Christians could possibly give to 3sigma's "requests" are automatically negated by his stated, sincerely held presupposition?

Click to expand...

Couldn't it just mean that Christianity is, well, simply not justifiable?

Tzaousios said:

What, you do not think that all "evidence" that Christians could possibly give to 3sigma's "requests" are automatically negated by his stated, sincerely held presupposition?

Click to expand...

No, I certainly do not believe that. Rational people tend to change their mind about things if/when presented with compelling evidence.

ETA: Also, what Cabal said.

Cabal said:

Couldn't it just mean that Christianity is, well, simply not justifiable?

Click to expand...

No, it means to atheists such as 3sigma, who have already chosen to believe there is no God and that Christians are deluded by their own imaginations, and hold this as their presupposition, that all evidence is automatically negated even before it is offered.

Thus, it is a rhetorical circle designed to denigrate religious belief, although clothed in terms of "requests for evidence" and the carrot-on-the-stick that it could convince them. Therein is the insidiousness of it.

Tzaousios said:

No, it means to atheists such as 3sigma, who have already chosen to believe there is no God and that Christians are deluded by their own imaginations, and hold this as their presupposition, that all evidence is automatically negated even before it is offered.

Thus, it is a rhetorical circle designed to denigrate religious belief, although clothed in terms of "requests for evidence" and the carrot-on-the-stick that it could convince them. Therein is the insidiousness of it.

Click to expand...

Again, instead of pretending to be able to glean his intentions through mind-reading, why not either just answer his request in a straight-forward manner, instead of side-stepping and throwing out personal attacks?

Let me ask it this way: What evidence do you find compelling enough to believe what you believe?

selfinflikted said:

No, I certainly do not believe that. Rational people tend to change their mind about things if/when presented with compelling evidence.

Click to expand...

There needs to be an addendum to this statement. "Rational people," i.e. enlightened atheists, tend to change their mind about all things except religious belief if/when presented with compelling, scientifically controlled evidence.

Tzaousios said:

No, it means to atheists such as 3sigma, who have already chosen to believe there is no God and that Christians are deluded by their own imaginations, and hold this as their presupposition, that all evidence is automatically negated even before it is offered.

Click to expand...

Holding a belief doesn't mean you automatically disregard any contrary evidence. Even if 3sigma believed that there was no God and that Christians are deluded for believing otherwise, that doesn't mean he automatically rejects any evidence to the contrary.

Tzaousios said:

Thus, it is a rhetorical circle designed to denigrate religious belief, although clothed in terms of "requests for evidence" and the carrot-on-the-stick that it could convince them. Therein is the insidiousness of it.

Click to expand...

You're seeing circular arguments where there's only ever been the honest request for evidence. Ultimately, whatever 3sigma's personal convictions, the request stands: do you, or do you not, have evidence for your claims?