Does morality exist without God?

[Paulos23]

I see. So what makes Hitler wicked was he lost the war.

Morals are morals, I didn't say which was bad or good. What one society thinks is good another could think is bad. The only clear judge is history, and even that may change with time.

 

[solarwave]

Morality is independant of God, but I see little reason to believe in morality is there is no God. If there is no God morality seems to be personal opinion or tradition, but with God we are more than molecules we are made of and there is a an objective mind which understands the moral law.

 

[Awesome_Frog]

Morality is independant of God, but I see little reason to believe in morality is there is no God. If there is no God morality seems to be personal opinion or tradition, but with God we are more than molecules we are made of and there is a an objective mind which understands the moral law.

I must then ask, why is that important?

 

[Daniel25]

Morals are morals, I didn't say which was bad or good. What one society thinks is good another could think is bad. The only clear judge is history, and even that may change with time.

I see. Also, mob-lynching blacks in the south. That is also moral, to you, as they are based on the societies values and imperatives?


I think the conclusion of this thread is "Yes, you can have morals without God. But they won't seem like or behave like morals". I wonder, if you call a rooster a hen, does it start to lay eggs?

 

[solarwave]

I must then ask, why is that important?

I'm not sure exactly what your question is?

Do you believe in an objective moral law?

 

[Awesome_Frog]

I'm not sure exactly what your question is?

Do you believe in an objective moral law?

I'm asking you why its important for you to be more then molecules, considering that you actually are more then just molecules. Molecules don't make up the self.

I'll answer your question, though I don't care to black and white isues as complex as objectivism.

I find morality to be subject to experience and knowledge of objective principles, and are prone to change based on our combined knowledge of ourselves and others.

Societies are subjective based on the current understanding of ourselves, but the world universe is objective because the universe is not a thinking being with an actual plan, it dose what it dose because it dose.

Understand my position?

 

[badtim]

Morality is independant of God, but I see little reason to believe in morality is there is no God. If there is no God morality seems to be personal opinion or tradition, but with God we are more than molecules we are made of and there is a an objective mind which understands the moral law.

I would agree that morality is apart from god (well, i don't believe in god, so of course!) but many of your co-religionists would not, and positing a moral standard apart from a monotheistic god is problematic when the god is defined as christianity so often defines one.

I've yet to see any actual evidence for anything such as an objective moral law -- morals consist of normative statements about human behavior, and so i would think necessarily would be subjective, as human behavior / perception is also subjective.

The lack of belief in gods does not, by itself, logically lead to a lack of "moral" behavior, just a different underpinning of that behavior. For example, pure buddhism is an essentially atheistic philosophy, and yet makes normative statements, and is capable of producing what most people would characterize as "moral" behavior.

 

[Paulos23]

I see. Also, mob-lynching blacks in the south. That is also moral, to you, as they are based on the societies values and imperatives?

It was a moral imperative to some of the white south to keep the society that they where use to (i.e. keep the black man down). This is an excellent example of a moral that was considered good by a society at the time (i.e. in the south), but later was proved to be harmful to the society by a larger whole (i.e. the USA).

I think the conclusion of this thread is "Yes, you can have morals without God. But they won't seem like or behave like morals". I wonder, if you call a rooster a hen, does it start to lay eggs?

Well if your definition is a moral is always a good thing, then yes. But I do not define morals as that. A moral to me is a social rule that is decided by the society. Some seam fixed, but are broken in extreme times. Others change and keep changing based on the makeup of the society.

If your think there is a strict group of morals from God, that is your belief. But my experience with history and people has shown me that even those morals we think are eternal have changed over time.

 

[quatona]

Morality is independant of God, but I see little reason to believe in morality is there is no God. If there is no God morality seems to be personal opinion or tradition, but with God we are more than molecules we are made of and there is a an objective mind which understands the moral law.

Well, for our purposes it would be more important that we understand the moral law, and that it makes sense to us.
Again, if the "objective mind" has determined that atrocities, genocide and such are good and right, I will still consider them bad and wrong - no matter how "objective" the mind is that dictates them; and I sincerely hope you would, as well.
Bottom line: Personally, I see little reason to care for a morality just because it is "objective".

 

[Skavau]

morality as "just, like, your opinion, man" is kind of toothless and banal.

"hey dude, uhh, i feel like murder is bad. That is like my opinion man, so can you please try and knock it off? I know your personal moral code is like different, so i dunno, just think about it okay?"

"Morality comes from an objective lawgiver known as God."
"Just, like, your opinion, man."

Looks as if you have the same problem.

 

[Skavau]

Oh? I'm sorry, but I wasn't aware that you had the right to tell me what I believe. Have you read the Bible? The biggest recurring theme that pops up is love for one another, and love for God. Jesus wasn't just making that up when He summed up the Law and the Prophets. I would back that assertion, but I'm not fond of quoting the near entirety a 66-volume book on the internet.

And love for one another does not require literalism and is simply a part of humanism seperate from loving God.

Not so. You still have God, and all the qualities He has.

But remove the requirement or insistence of obedience and repentance for one's own low standards and all moral thought becomes effectively humanism.

First of all, non religious is not the same as atheistic.

I know. That's why I said 'non-religious'. Non-Religious non-atheists in general are just as likely to be as apathetic or vitriolic to religion as atheists are.

Secondly, if they are apathetic, why do you have a lot of atheists who try to shout down Christianity and Christians at every opportunity they get? Are they, then, not atheists?

I explain this in the next sentence. The apathetic ones, of course, are the one's you don't see on Christianforums.com. They are the non-descript individuals in the street with no interest and no bone to pick with religion. You're not so inept as to take every atheist on a religious forum on the internet as wholeheartedly representive of all atheists?

Your question should be rephrased to inquire why there are so many anti-theists. That is the word you are looking for. I and others on this forum would consider ourselves amongst that 'group'. Atheism just means disbelief in God. Anti-theism means a moral opposition to God.

I'll have to correct you there- SOME adherents claim to literally be on the side of God and following the rules of God. The rest of us recognize that the world isn't so black-and-white and that we mess up all the time, and that the only difference between you and I is a matter of forgiveness.

I would wager that every Christian contends that they are at least attempting to follow God and work on the side of God in order to be with God. I never claimed that those who do it were so arrogant that they would assume to be successful all the time in following God, only that they desire and try to achieve it.

 

[rsduncan]

Skavau,

I am so very relieved to know that all athiests are not like the ones here. Some of the athiest posters here seem to have a little of "Uncle Joe" in them...

 

[Skavau]

To the 'objective lawgiver' crowd, I have one question:

1) Is torture for thought-crime wrong, and if so - why?

 

[rsduncan]

To the 'objective lawgiver' crowd, I have one question:

1) Is torture for thought-crime wrong, and if so - why?

Skavau,

If I am understanding you correctly and you really want an answer to this question, I suggest you crack open a New Testament and read the Third Chapter of The Gospel According to John...

 

[bricklayer]

All ideas are eternally present, in the mind of God.
God is necessary, everything else is contingent.

There is that which is like Him, and there is that which is contrary to His nature, but there is nothing apart from Him, not even an idea.

 

[Zebra1552]

And love for one another does not require literalism and is simply a part of humanism seperate from loving God.

Literalism? What on earth did you bring that in for?

But remove the requirement or insistence of obedience and repentance for one's own low standards and all moral thought becomes effectively humanism.

Since when is Christianity about obedience?

I explain this in the next sentence. The apathetic ones, of course, are the one's you don't see on Christianforums.com. They are the non-descript individuals in the street with no interest and no bone to pick with religion. You're not so inept as to take every atheist on a religious forum on the internet as wholeheartedly representive of all atheists?

No, that's why I made the comment about atheists doing vile things...

Your question should be rephrased to inquire why there are so many anti-theists. That is the word you are looking for. I and others on this forum would consider ourselves amongst that 'group'. Atheism just means disbelief in God. Anti-theism means a moral opposition to God.

Anti-theists who, in large part, are atheists.

I would wager that every Christian contends that they are at least attempting to follow God and work on the side of God in order to be with God. I never claimed that those who do it were so arrogant that they would assume to be successful all the time in following God, only that they desire and try to achieve it.

Which then means nothing.

 

[Skavau]

Skavau,

If I am understanding you correctly and you really want an answer to this question, I suggest you crack open a New Testament and read the Third Chapter of The Gospel According to John...

I'm asking real life torture for thought-crime. Is it unequivocally wrong according to those who support absolute morality, and if so why?

 

[variant]

Morality is independant of God, but I see little reason to believe in morality is there is no God. If there is no God morality seems to be personal opinion or tradition, but with God we are more than molecules we are made of and there is a an objective mind which understands the moral law.

The addition of a God to the equation doesn't make morality any less a matter of opinion or power, it just adds the opinion of someone who may have the power to back it up. It is merely theologies that assert that God has a perfect sense of morality and that also assert that the opinions of God are the correct opinions. It's an assertion non the less.

A God that we would consider terrible or evil for instance may have an opinion on morality that is amoral from our perspective.

Further, morality is unlikely to be arbitrary regardless of the existence or non-existence of Gods, as there are objective consequences to the actions we take and our preferences for evaluating those consequences.

 

[Skavau]

Since when is Christianity about obedience?

I get the feeling this is nothing more than a disagreement on semantics. Remove the affiliation with God found in Christianity and you have humanism.

No, that's why I made the comment about atheists doing vile things...

But you did ask rather obtusely why "do you have a lot of atheists who try to shout down Christianity and Christians at every opportunity they get?" The amount of atheists who do that are no larger than the amount of Christians that try to discredit and smear atheists as amoral.

Anti-theists who, in large part, are atheists.

Yes. So? Not all atheists are anti-theists. So you should be wondering why there is a trend of anti-theism amongst atheists, not whining per se about the majority of atheists.

 

[rsduncan]

The addition of a God to the equation doesn't make morality any less a matter of opinion or power, it just adds the opinion of someone who may have the power to back it up. It is merely theologies that assert that God has a perfect sense of morality and that also assert that the opinions of God are the correct opinions. It's an assertion non the less.

A God that we would consider terrible or evil for instance may have an opinion on morality that is amoral from our perspective.

Further, morality is unlikely to be arbitrary regardless of the existence or non-existence of Gods, as there are objective consequences to the actions we take and our preferences for evaluating those consequences.

I have to say that this appears to be a very finely crafted post. I would add a morality that would seem to be hideous to humans given our limited knowledge and very temporal perspective might on the other hand seem by us to be completely just and right if we were, among other superlatives, omniscient, all-seeing and timeless.

I don't think I could be a just judge of G-d under those circumstances, even if I was so inclined, which I am most definitely not. I love Him...