Does morality exist without God?

[Eudaimonist]

EXPLAIN

buildings without architects??

so does the universe has design therefore requires an architect??

The universe isn't designed.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Zebra1552]

With no help from the command of subservience otherwise known as the first commandment. People are critical in spite of it.

It's about love and respect, not 'subservience'. An all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving God sort of deserves love and respect, being our creator and all.

No, your question was pretty clear-cut jaws. You asked it as if everyone should follow them.

I asked you a question, directly. If I'm going to make an argument I'll just do it. You read into it plain and simple.

 

[belarm]

EXPLAIN
buildings without architects??
so does the universe has design therefore requires an architect??

Two points:

1. The topic of this thread is not the existence of God or gods.
2. What you are referring to is classically called the Watchmaker analogy. You can read about it in depth here: Watchmaker analogy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
   Pay particular attention to Hume's refutation, and, in particular, the point about infinite regression - if God's mind is ordered enough to create an ordered world, then He must have had a designer, as well.

 

[Zebra1552]

Perhaps you should try reading your Bible. For example, the commands God issued concerning taking of the Promised Land.

Perhaps you should try sticking to the issue and give the evidence I asked for rather than trying to insult my intelligence.

Can you command something without condoning your command?

God never commands rape, slavery, genocide, or infanticide.

Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.[1] While a precise definition varies among genocide scholars, a legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of this convention defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."[2]

Infanticide is the homicide of an infant; it can describe what might amount to a cultural act or an offence defined by the victim's age.

Both from Wikipedia. What God commanded in the OT was not murder, therefore ruling out infanticide. You would also need to show that God intended to wipe out an entire people group: Since God is quite capable of doing this and didn't, it's safe to say that intent wasn't there, making any command to take a city no command of genocide, merely of war.

Rape and slavery are self explanatory. Nowhere does God command it.

 

[Zebra1552]

• Genocide and infanticide: 1 Samuel 1:2-3
• Infanticide: 1 Samuel 15:3
• And, of course, Psalm 137:9

See above definitions. These were not examples. Furthermore...

1Sa 1:2 He had two wives; the name of the one was Hannah, and the name of the other Peninnah. Peninnah had children, but Hannah had no children.
1Sa 1:3 Now this man used to go up year by year from his town to worship and to sacrifice to the LORD of hosts at Shiloh, where the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, were priests of the LORD.

This is talking about what now?

1Sa 15:3 Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'"

This was to destroy a city and its people, not an entire ethnic, national, or religious group. Thereby ruling out genocide. It was not murder, for it had no ill motivation, thereby ruling out infanticide.


Psa 137:7 Remember, O LORD, against the Edomites the day of Jerusalem's fall, how they said, "Tear it down! Tear it down! Down to its foundations!"
Psa 137:8 O daughter Babylon, you devastator! Happy shall they be who pay you back what you have done to us!
Psa 137:9 Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!

This isn't murder. It's poetry, of a person demanding justice for his people. It's one person's opinion given the circumstances. You can't base your argument on a verse you pull out of context and hope for that argument to survive a rebuttal.

"Happy [shall he be], that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." (KJV)/"Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks!" (NLV)

Quotemining.

Slavery: Leviticus 25:44-46

Lev 25:44 As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves.
Lev 25:45 You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property.
Lev 25:46 You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness.

Again, ripped out of context. Furthermore, it's telling them what they can or cannot do with the slaves they already have: It does not command or condone slavery as we knew it from a few hundred years ago, given why people entered into slavery in ancient Israel.
​

• Rape: Many examples, but the worst has to be Deuteronomy 22:28-29:

"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver.c He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."(KJV)
"Suppose a man has intercourse with a young woman who is a virgin but is not engaged to be married. If they are discovered, he must pay her father fifty pieces of silver.c Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he may never divorce her as long as he lives." (NLT)​

I have already addressed this. He cannot marry again, he cannot divorce her. He has drastically reduced social standing the rest of his life and must provide for the woman he violated for the rest of his life. This is a punishment to the attacker, not the victim.

Forcing a rape victim to marry her attacker is shockingly cruel.

Of course, these laws are very old, and may have even been improvements in some areas; that in no way changes the fact that by today's standards, any one of these actions would get you thrown in jail or flat-out executed in the areas of the world we commonly consider 'civilized'.

This does not mean that God condones rape, slavery, infanticide, or murder. Your evidence fails to support the argument. It means that by today's standards, that which is commanded in the OT before 587 BC was for that time. You cannot possibly say with any amount of reasoning that God's laws then are applicable and judgable by today's standards because you ignore the context in making such a claim.

The poster you were responding to probably should have cited sources, but these examples are relatively well-known (at least among us non-believers who've had these arguments with their faithful family members).

Good for you. I've heard them all. They don't add up to support the claim, they are verses ripped out of their textual and historical context to support your disbelief in the Bible.

You who claim that Christians need critical thinking, use it in analyzing our Book.

 

[Zebra1552]

Oh, "specific reasons". That makes rape, slavery, infanticide, or genocide okay.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Straw man argument. My argument is that God did not order or condone these things. How, then, can I be arguing that specific reasons make them okay?

 

[AGODBELIEVERlove1stfaith2]

whats the difference between humanism, ATHEISM and rationalism * are not these freethought??
　
　
Atheism, Rationalism
　
and Freethought
　
is democracy causing chaos,,,
i mean..
populations of countries have supposedly varied ideals of societal lifestyles, perspectives and etc...
and so therefore would masses ( people obviously) hamper unity and cohesion of a minority ushering peace and justice for all
　
　
how can dictators be condemned ...
but in the NEW WORLD ORDER mandates 1 religion .. 1 governmental entity and currency ..
　
　
hm hm

 

[AGODBELIEVERlove1stfaith2]

i agree
with GOD there is grace ..

human nature without is evil
the fruits of the carnal are evident and innumberable


but on the OTHER HAND,
the fruits of the SPIRIT are nine..



how can we not please ..

Straw man argument. My argument is that God did not order or condone these things. How, then, can I be arguing that specific reasons make them okay?

 

[AGODBELIEVERlove1stfaith2]

satan is a liar

he has , is and will delude people..

belief of 1 GOD or many gods & goddesses have caused wars and etc...
so therefore would a godless or DIVINE belief eradicated bring prosperity and the sought after WORLD PEACE ..??

there exist CHRISTIAN atheism...




..... " depart from ME, I never knew you ...."

 

[AGODBELIEVERlove1stfaith2]

spiritual things are spiritually discerned

 

[Tinker Grey]

Demonstrate that there are spiritual things.

 

[AGODBELIEVERlove1stfaith2]

my point exactly


how can i show u invisible ?


really

Demonstrate that there are spiritual things.

 

[sandwiches]

It's about love and respect, not 'subservience'. An all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving God sort of deserves love and respect, being our creator and all.

If I met someone who's verifiably the creator of life on Earth or the one who guided evolution, I would treat her with respect, of course. Isn't that a pretty much a given of anyone you meet?

Now, if this somehow should translate to worship or piety, then I'm afraid you've lost me. My parents have raised me, supported me, helped me, and suffered for me for 32 years and they have never asked for me to worship them.

 

[Tinker Grey]

dp

 

[Tinker Grey]

my point exactly


how can i show u invisible ?


really

If you can't demonstrate them, why do you believe them?

 

[sandwiches]

spiritual things are spiritually discerned

And how can you know that what you're discerning is correct? Is there a verification method for your spiritual knowledge?

 

[Zebra1552]

If I met someone who's verifiably the creator of life on Earth or the one who guided evolution, I would treat her with respect, of course. Isn't that a pretty much a given of anyone you meet?

Now, if this somehow should translate to worship or piety, then I'm afraid you've lost me. My parents have raised me, supported me, helped me, and suffered for me for 32 years and they have never asked for me to worship them.

Worship is out of gratitude, not obligation.

 

[sandwiches]

Worship is out of gratitude, not obligation.

Who else do you worship because of gratitude? Anyone? If not, why not?

 

[selfinflikted]

Worship is out of gratitude, not obligation.

I was under the impression that worship was sort of commanded in the Bible. Though, I could be wrong.

 

[Zebra1552]

I was under the impression that worship was sort of commanded in the Bible. Though, I could be wrong.

I don't recall any passages where God specifically tells people to worship Him. Obey Him, quite often, but worship is often discussed under the air of 'man, this God guy is awesome and SO deserving of my worship, more than anything else out there'. From what I can tell, there are no punishments for NOT worshipping, just if someone worships something or someone other than God- which goes back to obedience, not a command for worship. More like, if you're going to worship Him, it's gotta be just Him. He states numerous reasons throughout Exodus.