Does morality exist without God?

[rsduncan]

Some of the most vile creatures were Christians. Some were Muslims. Some were black, some were white. You name any group and there'll be several vile people in there somewhere.

The important thing to remember is that if you just a group by it's members, you include all of the members, not just the ones that work with a confirmation bias. Then you realise that generally, people are all right. Christianity, as a group, is all right.

If I was going to put forward any difference at all, it would be that the vile atheists did not act in the name of atheism, but in the name of power. Many Christians, however, have committed awful deeds in the name of their belief.

Please...

Why can't you simply acknowledge a couple of historical facts???

I also fail to understand why you find the fact that the athiest perpetrators of the two biggest mega-democides did not act in the name of atheism cleansing.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Please...

Why can't you simply acknowledge a couple of historical facts???

Which ones? I haven't disputed any so far. The only historical claim made has been that there have been evil atheists, and that's definitely true. So what are you talking about?

 

[rsduncan]

Which ones? I haven't disputed any so far. The only historical claim made has been that there have been evil atheists, and that's definitely true. So what are you talking about?

You seem to think that you can bury the acts of the perpetrators of the two biggest mega-democides under two flavors of Communism and be clean...

 

[Eudaimonist]

You seem to think that you can bury the acts of the perpetrators of the two biggest mega-democides under two flavors of Communism and be clean...

I don't see how you believe he thinks that. Please explain.

I don't see him denying that there have been evil atheists.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[SithDoughnut]

You seem to think that you can bury the acts of the perpetrators of the two biggest mega-democides under two flavors of Communism and be clean...

I didn't. Still no idea what you're talking about. I was talking about religion, not communism.

 

[KCfromNC]

While I do affirm that nothing exists without God, this raises more questions than it solves. But for you atheists, let me ask you this: Christianity's biggest affirmation is of love for others, love for God, and treating both right. Even if God didn't exist, what would you lose by seeking improvement in how people treat each other?

You could ask Christians the same thing - if you're really into love for fellow man just like the non-believers, why not jettison the worries about god and adopt secular humanism or some other non-religious moral code?

You won't because there are significant issues created with the "loving God" part of the equation. That's the same reason non-believers don't always jump aboard Christian causes, even if the Christians in question frame it as a simple matter of loving one another.

 

[Daniel25]

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?"


or what is moral is what feels good. Having those being equivalent is just a sleight of hand way to say there is no morality and not feel the opprobrium involved in such a statement. If green is the same as red, either red or green does not exist as a seperate entity. Pleasure exists; if morality is the same thing as pleasure then it no longer exists as a seperate entity.

 

[SithDoughnut]

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?"

Why must objectivists try to cram subjectivism into their worldview? It just doesn't work, and at best leads to a massive understanding on how relativism is generally thought of.

Here's how it actually works:

"It's just, like, your opinion, man, but your opinion is wrong. Yes I know that's an opinion too, but that puts my opinion against yours and I'm going to go ahead and say that mine is the better one, as it's founded upon better principles. Oh look, all these people agree with me, so we're going to encode our opinions in something called 'law', and you're going to have to follow it if you want to be part of our society. Yes, that's still our opinion, but it's our collective opinion, so we win."

I find it odd that objectivists find relativism so strange when the whole concept of democracy is founded upon it. It's not a question of which is better - relativism exists right now. Our concepts of freedom and rights are based upon the whole idea that people think differently. That's subjectivism, right there.

 

[Daniel25]

Why must objectivists try to cram subjectivism into their worldview? It just doesn't work, and at best leads to a massive understanding on how relativism is generally thought of.

Here's how it actually works:

"It's just, like, your opinion, man, but your opinion is wrong. Yes I know that's an opinion too, but that puts my opinion against yours and I'm going to go ahead and say that mine is the better one, as it's founded upon better principles. Oh look, all these people agree with me, so we're going to encode our opinions in something called 'law', and you're going to have to follow it if you want to be part of our society. Yes, that's still our opinion, but it's our collective opinion, so we win."

I find it odd that objectivists find relativism so strange when the whole concept of democracy is founded upon it. It's not a question of which is better - relativism exists right now. Our concepts of freedom and rights are based upon the whole idea that people think differently. That's subjectivism, right there.

The "morality" of a lynch mob. How charming.

At least it's more honest than your "I do good cause it feels good" sleight of hand.

 

[quatona]

"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?"

Aren´t there enough real statements from real posters that you could comment - instead of making up positions and attitudes that you´d prefer to tackle?

or what is moral is what feels good. Having those being equivalent is just a sleight of hand way to say there is no morality and not feel the opprobrium involved in such a statement. If green is the same as red, either red or green does not exist as a seperate entity. Pleasure exists; if morality is the same thing as pleasure then it no longer exists as a seperate entity.

Fortunately, nobody here has said that morality is the same thing as pleasure, so I am not sure whom you are discussing with except with your own strawmen.

 

[Paulos23]

For the OP.

Morality exists based on society, not God. Morality is those codes (sometimes unwritten) that hold societies together and make it functional. Some where discovered early on (do not kill, do not steal) while some are still being hashed out today. It changes based on the pressures the society has on it.

Since pressures change over time, morality changes over time. To claim one fixed morality is to doom a society slowly.

 

[Zebra1552]

You could ask Christians the same thing - if you're really into love for fellow man just like the non-believers, why not jettison the worries about god and adopt secular humanism or some other non-religious moral code?

You assume that beliefs about God are just worries.

You won't because there are significant issues created with the "loving God" part of the equation. That's the same reason non-believers don't always jump aboard Christian causes, even if the Christians in question frame it as a simple matter of loving one another.

Because most of the time, it is a simple matter of loving one another. Unfortunately, culture and politics get in the way of this and people make it more complicated for those that wish to make it simple- or see it as simple to begin with.

 

[badtim]

So Christianity, then, is judged by its adherents and not by its followers? Then I have news for atheists: Some of the most vile creatures on the face of this planet were atheists. You still want to use that equivalence?

that's a false equivalence; atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods, it makes no normative statements. there's no "atheist moral philosophy" that is centered around a lack of belief -- how could there be ethical / moral statements attached to that?

if you would like to compare christianity with moral philosophies, i would suggest perhaps utilitarianism, or hedonism.

I'm assuming you're referring to Stalin's purges in the Soviet Union, and Mao's similar activities in the PRC. Neither of those monsters (see, i agree with your ethical implication) were primarily atheist -- it was never a governing, necessary trait for either of their policies / actions. At best it was an expression of their drive to consolidate all power within their own controlling hierarchy; neither could tolerate any sort of outside influence in their dictatorship. In the case of Stalin, the Russian Orthodox Church was closely associated with the Romanoff dynasty, and in the case of Mao, his primary consideration was the elimination of "foreign" or "superstitious" influence. Both considered religion to be an enemy, but for purely practical control considerations, not philosophical ones.

And if you're implying that the reverse is true, that religious states, in particular christian ones, are more ethical than those that are not, you're ignoring the historical record entirely, as well as current social trends. Religiosity does not correlate well with what are commonly considered positive social traits, even by the standards of the religious, and in fact, oftentimes is the opposite -- look at crime, drug addiction, teen pregnancy, etc. in the US and compare that to religiosity.

If christian religion was such a panacea, then I would think that the Bible Belt would be a correspondingly lovely place, instead of having some of the highest crime rates in the nation, with five out of the top ten slots in terms of overall crime.

 

[Zebra1552]

Nothing, of course. But then I have never personally observed an atheist ever contend that we shouldn't work on improving how people treat each other. I would also disagree on the point that Christianity's biggest affirmation is of love for others. Christianity's biggest affirmation is its claim of our incapability to live up to God's standards and its insistence that we repent of our own inherent self-failure and live a life of persistent obedience and adulation towards God.

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.

Take those two themes away (which are prevailing) from any moral claim invoked by any devoted Christian and you simply have humanism.

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

First of all, most atheists are apathetic towards religion. I would suspect at least 10-15% of the North American population at minimum are atheistic, or in general non-religious.

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

And some of the most vile on this planet were theists. Atheism does not describe an ideology, it only describes an absence. You cannot derive anything about atheism by how one person behaves.

I'm sorry, but did you read what I wrote? Because you just agreed with my point there.

All you can point to is that they lack a belief in a God. With Christianity, it is not like that. Christianity is a specific belief system which makes both moral and metaphysical claims. Its adherents claim to be literally be on the side of God and claim to be following the rules of 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.

Even without analyzing a bible, one can merely note the history of Christianity and observe a lot of Christian thought now to note that Christianity indeed does have an issue with homosexuality.

Red herring. Plus it's now a taboo subject.

 

[badtim]

Because most of the time, it is a simple matter of loving one another. Unfortunately, culture and politics get in the way of this and people make it more complicated for those that wish to make it simple- or see it as simple to begin with.

nothing is simple when culture and people are concerned. the simple answers are nearly always wrong, no matter how much people want them to be right.

 

[Zebra1552]

nothing is simple when culture and people are concerned. the simple answers are nearly always wrong, no matter how much people want them to be right.

Thank you for proving my point by making it more complicated.

 

[Daniel25]

For the OP.

Morality exists based on society, not God. Morality is those codes (sometimes unwritten) that hold societies together and make it functional. Some where discovered early on (do not kill, do not steal) while some are still being hashed out today. It changes based on the pressures the society has on it.

Since pressures change over time, morality changes over time. To claim one fixed morality is to doom a society slowly.

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

 

[quatona]

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

Yeah, saying so would be as unconvincing as saying that what makes Hitlers actions wicked was that God said they were wicked.

 

[Daniel25]

Yeah, saying so would be as unconvincing as saying that what makes Hitlers actions wicked was that God said they were wicked.

You are morality is merely the mores of society, subjective and temporal. So if Hitler had won, then him and his society could have imposed his values on the west. And you would be feeling uncomfortable right now contemplating a future in which FDR was not wicked.

With an external objective morality, I can say the actions of Hitler's was wrong in Germany in the 20th century, or if he was in Carthage in the 3rd century, or on Mars in the 25th century. If you are uncomfortable with how facile and self-serving your ethics are, that is a personal problem.

 

[quatona]

You are morality is merely the mores of society, subjective and temporal. So if Hitler had won, then him and his society could have imposed his values on the west. And you would be feeling uncomfortable right now contemplating a future in which FDR was not wicked.

The first sentence in this paragraph is incomplete. Since the rest of the paragraph (as indicated by the "so") is meant to follow from the first sentence I am a little lost.
Maybe you meant to say "You are saying..."? In which case the answer is "No, I am not saying this."

With an external objective morality, I can say the actions of Hitler's was wrong in Germany in the 20th century, or if he was in Carthage in the 3rd century, or on Mars in the 25th century.

Well, at best that makes a case for an external objective morality to be desirable. In the discussion with someone who shares this feeling you would now be half-way there. You´d only have to demonstrate that that which you desire exists, and finally you´d have to demonstrate that it is congruent with your morality.

Personally, I don´t find an external objective morality desirable per se and a priori. After all, it could turn out that this external objective morality says that Hitler was right, and that I - holding a morality that considers Hitler´s action wrong - am wrong myself.

All that said, I am glad you and I agree that Hitler´s regime was horrible. However, the fact that you can´t think of any better argument for this position than "My god says so." (which implies that you´d praise Hitler if your god´s morality would dictate you to) takes away a little from the happiness about this agreement.

If you are uncomfortable with how facile and self-serving your ethics are, that is a personal problem.

Stick your ad hominems up a warm and safe place, will you?