Does morality exist without God?

[Zebra1552]

Anti-theism is a reaction towards theism by those who have been hurt by it, or those who disagree with it. It isn't hard to figure out that in a somewhat religious society, those who are non-religious are going to include those who also anti-religious.

Are you TRYING to not answer my question?

 

[Skavau]

Are you TRYING to not answer my question?

No. You've asked many questions. Which one are you referring to?

 

[Skavau]

Are you into pain or something???

What?

 

[rsduncan]

What?

Just two days ago, I was furious with many of you. Now, I am sad and frightened FOR you.

And if you think that religion and G-d have caused you and others pain now, just wait, for if you continue on your present course, you may win many a battle against religion and the people of faith, but the very last one you will lose! Then you will see what pain really is...

 

[Skavau]

Just two days ago, I was furious with many of you. Now, I am sad and frightened FOR you.

This is the first time I have ever spoken to you.

And if you think that religion and G-d have caused you and others pain now, just wait

Religion hasn't caused me pain or suffering personally. I was talking about it causing pain and suffering for others.

, for if you continue on your present course, you may win many a battle against religion and the people of faith, but the very last one you will lose! Then you will see what pain really is...

Now, see - this is why atheists hold anti-theistic perspectives. This is effectively a supernatural threat of violence against me simply for what I believe. How can you expect me or anyone for that matter to hold the God you believe in as virtuous when you threaten me with hellfire and torture purely for what I think?

Looks like you do endorse thought-crime after all.

 

[rsduncan]

This is the first time I have ever spoken to you.


Religion hasn't caused me pain or suffering personally. I was talking about it causing pain and suffering for others.


Now, see - this is why atheists hold anti-theistic perspectives. This is effectively a supernatural threat of violence against me simply for what I believe. How can you expect me or anyone for that matter to hold the God you believe in as virtuous when you threaten me with hellfire and torture purely for what I think?

Looks like you do endorse thought-crime after all.

This is no threat for what you believe or think, but a warning to you regarding the evil that you are set to do with that belief. You are bellicose in thought againt G-d and against His believers, and you are belligerent in words. The next step is aggressive, violent action on your part, and that will weigh heavily against you at the White Throne. Frankly, the penalty will then be justified.

You might want to look at the prophecy of the Fifth Seal (Revelation 6:9-11), because you are very primed to fulfill that...

 

[Skavau]

This is no threat for what you believe or think, but a warning to you regarding the evil that you are set to do with that belief.

What evil do you think that I going to do with this belief?

You are bellicose in thought againt G-d and against His believers, and you are belligerent in words.

I am not 'at war' with Yahweh anymore than I am with Allah. I am certainly not 'at war' with any theists and nor do I hold any ill-will towards them. My anti-theism is simply a perspective that states it would be rather awful if the God described in the Qu'ran or the Bible did exist. I am glad that I actually don't believe either exists.

I hold that 'theistic morality' (that is to say, the belief that all moral considerations derives from and is dictated by God) is nothing more than pseudo-morality in its application that holds humanity as mere tools to God and all moral efforts as the pursuit for what God wants. In this, we become objects and means to a 'supernatural' end. It is the ultimate in slave-master morality. You yourself have demonstrated this adequately with your passive support for eternal punishment for opposition to God.

The next step is aggressive, violent action on your part, and that will weigh heavily against you at the White Throne. Frankly, the penalty will then be justified.

What? I have no violent nor ill means towards theism, and even if I did there's no way to respond violently to this.

 

[rsduncan]

What evil do you think that I going to do with this belief?


I am not 'at war' with Yahweh anymore than I am with Allah. I am certainly not 'at war' with any theists and nor do I hold any ill-will towards them. My anti-theism is simply a perspective that states it would be rather awful if the God described in the Qu'ran or the Bible did exist. I am glad that I actually don't believe either exists.

I hold that 'theistic morality' (that is to say, the belief that all moral considerations derives from and is dictated by God) is nothing more than pseudo-morality in its application that holds humanity as mere tools to God and all moral efforts as the pursuit for what God wants. In this, we become objects and means to a 'supernatural' end. It is the ultimate in slave-master morality. You yourself have demonstrated this adequately with your passive support for eternal punishment for opposition to God.


What? I have no violent nor ill means towards theism, and even if I did there's no way to respond violently to this.

I could gather that from your words. I found them to be of a very threatening nature. As for what your actions will be: time will tell. Even if you commit no violence of your own, if you incite government violence by force of law, even if that violence is limited to fines or imprisonment, you will be held accountable...

 

[Skavau]

I could gather that from your words. I found them to be of a very threatening nature.

This is slightly amusing given that this is from the only person out of us to make actual threats (or suggestions) of eternal torture. In any case, I'll bite: what exactly was I said that you think came across as threatening?

As for what your actions will be: time will tell. Even if you commit no violence of your own, if you incite government violence by force of law, even if that violence is limited to fines or imprisonment, you will be held accountable...

I have no intention of inciting government violence. (What are you talking about, how exactly do you even imagine I would incite government violence)?

 

[Eudaimonist]

This is no threat for what you believe or think, but a warning to you regarding the evil that you are set to do with that belief. You are bellicose in thought againt G-d and against His believers, and you are belligerent in words. The next step is aggressive, violent action on your part

Oh, give me a break.

This is the slippery slope fallacy. There's not a reason in the world why he should become violent, even if he actually was an anti-theist.

and that will weigh heavily against you at the White Throne. Frankly, the penalty will then be justified.

This is a silly thing to expect atheists to believe. They are just empty threats.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[SithDoughnut]

This is no threat for what you believe or think, but a warning to you regarding the evil that you are set to do with that belief. You are bellicose in thought againt G-d and against His believers, and you are belligerent in words. The next step is aggressive, violent action on your part, and that will weigh heavily against you at the White Throne. Frankly, the penalty will then be justified.

You might want to look at the prophecy of the Fifth Seal (Revelation 6:9-11), because you are very primed to fulfill that...

Please, at least think about what you post before you post it, because this is the crazy nonsense that convinces people that anti-theism is the way to go.

 

[Zebra1552]

I could gather that from your words. I found them to be of a very threatening nature. As for what your actions will be: time will tell. Even if you commit no violence of your own, if you incite government violence by force of law, even if that violence is limited to fines or imprisonment, you will be held accountable...

Bro, at the top of the Ethics and Morality forum are tips for discussing things. In addition to that:

Logical Fallacies

Learn how to engage people on their grounds and you'll have more credibility with them.

 

[Crusader05]

This is no threat for what you believe or think, but a warning to you regarding the evil that you are set to do with that belief. You are bellicose in thought againt G-d and against His believers, and you are belligerent in words. The next step is aggressive, violent action on your part, and that will weigh heavily against you at the White Throne. Frankly, the penalty will then be justified.

You might want to look at the prophecy of the Fifth Seal (Revelation 6:9-11), because you are very primed to fulfill that...

And here we see why I am no longer a christian, threats of hell-fire.

Speaking of morality have you theists every thought about the morality of a god who would damn his creations to an eternity of suffering for finite crimes, like not believing in him or paying him due homage.

That is the definition of an immoral god.

 

[variant]

And here we see why I am no longer a christian, threats of hell-fire.

Speaking of morality have you theists every thought about the morality of a god who would damn his creations to an eternity of suffering for finite crimes, like not believing in him or paying him due homage.

That is the definition of an immoral god.

This one has already stated the point quite clearly that God's motivations are so incomprehensible that somehow they can only ever be judged to be an ultimate good by us.

So, obviously this person can not be reasoned with, and thus, has no possible claim to morality, or reason, and there is no reason why we should trust his unquestionable discernment of the undisernable.

 

[Crusader05]

This one has already stated the point quite clearly that God's motivations are so incomprehensible that somehow they can only ever be judged to be an ultimate good by us.

So, obviously this person can not be reasoned with, and thus, has no possible claim to morality, or reason, and there is no reason why we should trust his unquestionable discernment of the undisernable.

I understand, but I wanted to make the point anyway.

The whole 'inscruitable god' argument is so stupid. The same people who say that God wrote a book, hasa will and desire for our lives, that he has deep, personal relationships with his followers are the same people who make this claim. Which one is it?

If theists are going to make the claim that we need god to be moral they need to come up with a serious answer for the question of why it is moral for god to send us to hell for eternity for finite crimes. And my a serious answer I mean something more than the inscruitable god or the 'might makes right' arguments.

 

[KCfromNC]

You assume that beliefs about God are just worries.

You were implying that Christianity is 99% loving each other with a bit of god scattered about at the edges, so why can't non-believers just jump aboard. Now you're saying that god is vitally important. Do you understand why non-believers might disagree on this point?

 

[Zebra1552]

You were implying that Christianity is 99% loving each other with a bit of god scattered about at the edges, so why can't non-believers just jump aboard.

Straw man argument. I made a statement about the major themes and wondered why many are against it with those themes in mind. I said nothing about 'why can't they jump on board'.

Now you're saying that god is vitally important. Do you understand why non-believers might disagree on this point?

I know some possible reasons, but you know what they say about assumptions.

 

[quatona]

Straw man argument. I made a statement about the major themes and wondered why many are against it with those themes in mind.

1. They might not identify those themes as the major themes in Christianity as they encounter it.
2. While "loving each other" is all nice and dandy, it´s more like a generic term - and how "loving each other" is interpreted in Christianity might be something completely different than what they mean when saying "loving each other".
3. Personally, I was under the impression that Christianity was mainly about believing in a god. If this were not the major theme, non-Christians and Christians could discuss their views without god concepts even being mentioned.
(In my real life environment - which consists of, say, 80% Christians - this happens to be possible most of the time, btw. E.g. recently I talked to a friend, a Catholic priest, about families apparently being bound to repeat the same problems, issues and mistakes throughout generations, and he answered "Yeah, that´s what´s called 'original sin' in my worldview.")

 

[jonmichael818]

2. While "loving each other" is all nice and dandy, it´s more like a generic term - and how "loving each other" is interpreted in Christianity might be something completely different than what they mean when saying "loving each other".

Yes, I have always had an issue with the christ like concept of love. This short funny clip explains a bit of what I mean. Check it out its pretty funny I think.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2bpc7LSRZc[/youtube]


Course the issue of free will comes into play, but that is another debate.

 

[solarwave]

Yes, I have always had an issue with the christ like concept of love. This short funny clip explains a bit of what I mean. Check it out its pretty funny I think.

I agree that it is funny, but thats all. For many Christians it is attacking a strawman. Some Christians believe that it is possible for non-christians to go to heaven