Does morality exist without God?

[variant]

It IS founded in love. If you have a slew of people rebelling against each other- which, by the way, happened because the people disobeyed- you have a bloody and violent war on your hands. Better a few die than many.

Not stoning your children for rebelliousness causes civil wars now?

Seems like both a false dichotomy and a lack of any moral understanding from you.

The fact that you would defend clubbing your children to death with stones for rebelliousness shows that morality has problems co-existing with the idea of God.

 

[Zebra1552]

Not stoning your children for rebelliousness causes civil wars now?

You ever READ the OT? They even had a North and South.

Seems like both a false dichotomy and a lack of any moral understanding from you.

Ad hominem.

The fact that you would defend clubbing your children to death with stones for rebelliousness shows that morality has problems co-existing with the idea of God.

Sure it does.

 

[jonmichael818]

It IS founded in love.

Actually, I can agree that it is entirely possible that stoning a child for specific reasons can be an expression of sincere love.

Having said that, I think this type of behavior has much in common with what is called psychosis.
Consider the following:

People experiencing psychosis may report hallucinations or delusional beliefs, and may exhibit personality changes and thought disorder. Depending on its severity, this may be accompanied by unusual or bizarre behavior, as well as difficulty with social interaction and impairment in carrying out the daily life activities. -Wikipedia/Psychosis

Emphasis underlined are mine.

 

[variant]

You ever READ the OT? They even had a North and South.

Yes the OT blames all bad things on disobedience, but why should we believe this? The victors are always going to claim that God was on their side.

In my opinion a society that would stone you for disagreeing with it is worthy of being overthrown. Thankfully it was.

Ad hominem.

Saying you have a poor understanding of morality because you favor the death penalty for disobedient children is not an ad-hominim.

Look the term up

Sure it does.

Good we agree.

 

[Zebra1552]

Actually, I can agree that it is entirely possible that stoning a child for specific reasons can be an expression of sincere love.

Having said that, I think this type of behavior has much in common with what is called psychosis.
Consider the following:

Emphasis underlined are mine.

In today's society, yes, it would be. 6000 years ago halfway around the world, it wouldn't be. Times change.

 

[Zebra1552]

Yes the OT blames all bad things on disobedience, but why should we believe this? The victors are always going to claim that God was on their side.

Actually for a good chunk of OT history God WASN'T on their side. Thus the exile/occupation in 587 BC.

In my opinion a society that would stone you for disagreeing with it is worthy of being overthrown. Thankfully it was.

It wasn't 'for disagreeing' it was 'for group cohesiveness and unity'. This too failed, as we see throughout Judges and the times of the Kings. A good many people died because the Israelites couldn't follow directions.

Saying you have a poor understanding of morality because you favor the death penalty for disobedient children is not an ad-hominim.

Look the term up

You rip my credibility by ripping my character. That is indeed ad hom.

Good we agree.

My agreement or disagreement only shows my agreement or disagreement unless it is backed by common knowledge or evidence and says nothing about 'problems with morality coexisting with God'.

 

[quatona]

It IS founded in love.

Yes, in love for power and violence, maybe.

If you have a slew of people rebelling against each other- which, by the way, happened because the people disobeyed- you have a bloody and violent war on your hands.

Whut??
We were talking about child being disobedient to his father, not about "a slew of people rebelling against each other".
Not until you start stoning this child blood and violence have entered the scenario.

 

[Eudaimonist]

It IS founded in love. If you have a slew of people rebelling against each other- which, by the way, happened because the people disobeyed- you have a bloody and violent war on your hands. Better a few die than many.

That is a very dangerous rationalization. You can rationalize any killings by suggesting that it's all to prevent hypothetical future violence.

Tyrannical societies love this sort of justification for their tyranny. "You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs..."

I mean, hey, we're just executing the disobedient... How dare they not obey!


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Why would it?
OR/ Why would it not?

I have always found the moral argument convincing, like a vice that doesn't let go. However, there are problems with it (from a rationalist position), for instance, it does not come close to proving whatever god exist is the God of Christianity. The argument can just as easily be used by a deist, Judaism, Islam, etc.

There is secular morality and there is God's morality.

Without a god, any morality that "exists" is purely subjective and or arbitrary, sets of laws and rules invented by fallible people. Morality dissolves into a choose the flavor you like, the flavor most people like, etc. I think the moral argument is stronger for people with a conscience. Hardened people without much of a sense of morality could care less.

we can treat people who we can see with respect n treat GOD with disarray and how can we treat each other with no love whom we see daily but loves GOD whom we can not
vice versa ,,,...

Seems to me the second half of OP would be a subject for another thread. Assuming the "we" are Christians, well not everyone who claims..but at the same time, we're not God, we're not the moral law giver, and we're all law breakers, even born again, we're engaged in a spiritual war between the flesh and spirit. I feel where you're coming from though, more than you'll ever know.

Anyway, a closing thought, the moral argument fits best in a biblical presuppositional method, in the form of a transcendental argument, this involves strong biblical statements concerning non-Christians, and from them a biblical approach stressing the antithesis between autonomous man and the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Without a god, any morality that "exists" is purely subjective and or arbitrary, sets of laws and rules invented by fallible people.

And with a belief in a god, the very same truths would apply. Religion in particular offers no way out of such problems.

Morality dissolves into a choose the flavor you like, the flavor most people like, etc.

For some people, that might be true. However, there are honest secular people who seek something deeper and more demanding to morality than what "tastes good".


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[3sigma]

In today's society, yes, it would be. 6000 years ago halfway around the world, it wouldn't be. Times change.

Bravo. You finally see that what was considered moral in another culture or at another time is not considered moral today. In other words, morality is relative. There is no absolute morality based on the teachings of one particular religion.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

And with a belief in a god, the very same truths would apply. Religion in particular offers no way out of such problems.

Not so, but I would not argue from the standpoint of a "god", nor "religion", but from the full orbed GOD of Christianity, a Christian worldview maintaining the Lordship of Jesus Christ over every area of life.

In trying to have a logical, rational argument with me, making "truth" claims, you borrow from the Christian worldview while suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. You assume the basic (transcendental) non-material laws of logic, without being able to give an account for them. The truth is only the Christian worldview provides the necessary preconditions for the intelligibility of human experience, and this is demonstrated by the impossibility of the contrary.

For some people, that might be true. However, there are honest secular people who seek something deeper and more demanding to morality than what "tastes good". eudaimonia, Mark

According to Scripture, "without faith it is impossible to please God". Whatever concept of "righteous" you have is self-righteousness and the Scriptures plainly state "all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags". Again "There is a way which seems right to a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death."

How do we know what is right and wrong for individuals in a society? Societies differ in their standards. By what standard? If any society legalized the raping of children would that make it right behavior? Of course not, it is absolutely evil sinful behavior, regardless of the society or period of time in history. Problem is, you cannot give an account for objective moral standards, without an objective moral law giver, can you?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Not so

I wouldn't expect you to agree with me, of course.

In trying to have a logical, rational argument with me, making "truth" claims, you borrow from the Christian worldview

The Stoics got to presuppositionalism first. You are borrowing from their worldview.

while suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.

Poisoning the well? I have a different metaphysics and epistemology than you do, which nevertheless supports truth claims. And I am fully honest about this, so drop the ad hominem moralizing.

You assume the basic (transcendental) non-material laws of logic, without being able to give an account for them.

And you make many assumptions about what I can or cannot do.

According to Scripture, "without faith it is impossible to please God". Whatever concept of "righteous" you have is self-righteousness and the Scriptures plainly state "all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags".

The Scriptures were written by fallible human beings, and can be mistaken.

How do we know what is right and wrong for individuals in a society?

By understanding what human beings are, and what they need to flourish as individuals in society.

By what standard?

Human life, which is an objective standard.

If any society legalized the raping of children would that make it right behavior? Of course not

I agree.

Problem is, you cannot give an account for objective moral standards, without an objective moral law giver, can you?

Yes, anyone can.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Exial]

Does morality exist without god?

Of course.

Morality exists
God does not
Therefore morality exists without god!

 

[3sigma]

Problem is, you cannot give an account for objective moral standards, without an objective moral law giver, can you?

There are no objective moral standards. Moral standards are subjective. They are the result of the consensus view of particular cultures at particular times and they often differ between cultures and times. Yes, there are some things that nearly everyone considers immoral nearly all the time, but they are still subjective moral standards.

 

[Matthijs]

I think a morality based on empathy, cooperation and love are not terribly hard to imagine. They only require a God if you have a hankering for Platonic essentialism and infinite regressions.

 

[Zebra1552]

Yes, in love for power and violence, maybe.

Whut??
We were talking about child being disobedient to his father, not about "a slew of people rebelling against each other".
Not until you start stoning this child blood and violence have entered the scenario.

We were talking about both. Remember someone brought up the passage that says to stone someone who entices you? They're related and relevant.

 

[Zebra1552]

That is a very dangerous rationalization. You can rationalize any killings by suggesting that it's all to prevent hypothetical future violence.

Not really. People aren't complete idiots you know.

Tyrannical societies love this sort of justification for their tyranny. "You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs..."

I mean, hey, we're just executing the disobedient... How dare they not obey!


eudaimonia,

Mark

I believe I already said it wasn't the obedience that was the reason. for the law. Why harp on it?

 

[Zebra1552]

Bravo. You finally see that what was considered moral in another culture or at another time is not considered moral today.

I've said that numerous times in numerous threads. Why is it so hard to grasp that a Christian can actually think about their holy book?

In other words, morality is relative. There is no absolute morality based on the teachings of one particular religion.

Morality is always relative to the situation. That's true even if you have a set of 'absolute morals'.

 

[quatona]

We were talking about both.

No, you and I weren´t.