Does morality exist without God?

[3sigma]

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

If moral standards were objective and absolute then the same situation would always be considered moral (or immoral) regardless of the culture or the time, but that isn’t what we see. For example, you claim that putting children to death for cursing their parents was the moral thing to do 6,000 years ago halfway around the world. However, here and now, hardly anyone would consider that to be a moral course of action. If moral standards were objective and absolute then we would still consider that to be moral, but we don’t so it is obvious that moral standards are not objective and absolute.

It is also obvious that we don’t need your God or any other god to be moral and if the moral standards found in the Bible and the behaviour of people apparently motivated by their religious beliefs are anything to go by then we are probably better off without it.

 

[variant]

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

It's a self fulfilling prophecy.

If you win the war God was on your side, and if you lose the war It was because you didn't do enough to please God in the manner of whoever gets to do the judging of what it is God wants.

The guy who does the interpreting on behalf of God gets all the power.

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.

Being ordered by "God" to bash your children’s head in with a heavy stone probably causes as many issues with group solidarity as it solves.

I feel fully justified by saying that I don't believe any God ever ordered anything of the sort, and that there are better ways of enhancing group solidarity than community execution day.

One would think that the moral prescriptions of an all powerful and all knowing God would be more timeless than the moral prescriptions in the Bible that seem to be a reflection on a brutal tribal culture.

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

Look up the definition of ad-hom. It is when I respond to your unrelated caricteristics rather than your argument. I said your argument demonstrates that you have no basic understanding of morality.

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'.

No your posting proves that these two concepts at odds.

 

[Zebra1552]

If moral standards were objective and absolute then the same situation would always be considered moral (or immoral) regardless of the culture or the time, but that isn’t what we see. For example, you claim that putting children to death for cursing their parents was the moral thing to do 6,000 years ago halfway around the world. However, here and now, hardly anyone would consider that to be a moral course of action. If moral standards were objective and absolute then we would still consider that to be moral, but we don’t so it is obvious that moral standards are not objective and absolute.

Thank you for reinforcing my point and restating what I just said in more words.

It is also obvious that we don’t need your God or any other god to be moral and if the moral standards found in the Bible and the behaviour of people apparently motivated by their religious beliefs are anything to go by then we are probably better off without it.

You're entitled to your perspective.

 

[3sigma]

Thank you for reinforcing my point and restating what I just said in more words.

I don’t want to misunderstand you so could you answer a few questions to clarify your position, please. Do you think that moral standards are not objective and absolute? Do you think we should not take everything written in the Bible as a moral guide? In other words, are there some things your God commands in the Bible that should not be followed? Please first give ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers, but feel free to elaborate.

 

[Zebra1552]

Please first give ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers, but feel free to elaborate.

No.

I don’t want to misunderstand you so could you answer a few questions to clarify your position, please. Do you think that moral standards are not objective and absolute?

I do think moral standards are absolute. These standards, however, may be expressed differently in different societies. Helping those in need, for example, may be giving food in one place and building houses in another. You cannot say that the same moral principle should be applied the same way throughout all situations, so if that is what you're defining as 'absolute' morality, then morality cannot, by your own definition, be absolute.

Do you think we should not take everything written in the Bible as a moral guide?

Some things in the Bible are written for moral guidance, others are not. So the question is a false dilemma. There's more options than 'yes' or 'no'. Therefore, your question will not be answered 'yes' or 'no'.

That which is written for moral guidance- the principles, mind you, not always how those principles are carried out- are meant for us to follow, and it is these principles that I myself follow. For example, the principle might be to take care of your body and honor God with your body. How this is carried out in some cases might mean abstaining from pork, and in other cases abstaining from fatty/salty foods in general. The principle remains the same no matter how it's carried out, and it is those principles that don't change.

In other words, are there some things your God commands in the Bible that should not be followed?

Not all commands were directed at all people for all time as your question seems to assume, so yes, there are some things that should not be followed.

 

[badtim]

Not all commands were directed at all people for all time as your question seems to assume, so yes, there are some things that should not be followed.

definitely. like the ten commandments.

 

[chris4243]

Morality is entirely arbitrary; like anything in logic/philosophy it is based on axioms which cannot be proven. This applies equally to atheists and religious people. Religious people usually choose their morality to match the mixture of the morality mentioned in their holy writings and the morality of the culture they were brought up with (but quite frequently point to their god as justification for their morality). Atheists usually point to the Golden Rule as justification for their morality. Most religious people also have the Golden Rule.

However, the Golden Rule is not sufficient to describe morality because people with different values have a different idea of what it means to love someone and what might harm them or not.

Oh, and the arbitrary moral standards can also be absolute. All that requires is that the standard be unchanging, eg written down in a book.

 

[badtim]

just because something is written in a book doesn't mean it's unchanging though

 

[Zebra1552]

definitely. like the ten commandments.

Got evidence for why those shouldn't be followed, or just trying to irritate? I'd love to know when it's a good idea to murder someone, steal, or cheat.

 

[StopSignTheology]

Does morality exist without God?

No.

That was easy.

You can close the thread now.

 

[StopSignTheology]

just because something is written in a book doesn't mean it's unchanging though

I can think of a few books by Darwin I can now discard.

Since now of course we have better science.

 

[Skavau]

Got evidence for why those shouldn't be followed, or just trying to irritate? I'd love to know when it's a good idea to murder someone, steal, or cheat.

Well directives against murdering, theft and cheating are fine.

However, the other directives are meaningless or disagreeable:

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Not relevant or meaningful to me. Certainly would ignore it as a directive.

2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.

Freedom of speech is of higher importance than this decree.

3. Remember thou keep the Sabbath Day.

No.

4. Honor thy Father and thy Mother.

This depends upon your relationship with your parents, though in general - sure.

6. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Some people desire open relationships and adultery in itself is not actually illegal.

 

[StopSignTheology]

Well directives against murdering, theft and cheating are fine.

However, the other directives are meaningless or disagreeable:

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Not relevant or meaningful to me. Certainly would ignore it as a directive.

2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.

Freedom of speech is of higher importance than this decree.

3. Remember thou keep the Sabbath Day.

No.

4. Honor thy Father and thy Mother.

This depends upon your relationship with your parents, though in general - sure.

6. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Some people desire open relationships and adultery in itself is not actually illegal.

Humanism ALWAYS breaks down to lascivious licentiousness.

Gotta love the Neo Sodom of it all.

It's comin' 'round again.

 

[Skavau]

Humanism ALWAYS breaks down to lascivious licentiousness.

What are you talking about? Are you referring to the adultery part? I would disapprove of someone cheating on someone in a close relationship, but I have no problem with open relationships and I would criminalize neither.

 

[Zebra1552]

Well directives against murdering, theft and cheating are fine.

However, the other directives are meaningless or disagreeable:

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Not relevant or meaningful to me. Certainly would ignore it as a directive.

Millions find it relevant or meaningful. So, what's your argument for it being inapplicable or out of date or irrelevant?

2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.

Freedom of speech is of higher importance than this decree.

And respect is not important? I'm guessing you wouldn't walk up to a pastor and tell his Jesus to go _ himself out of respect. So what's the issue here?

3. Remember thou keep the Sabbath Day.

No.

What, so rest is bad now? Since when?

4. Honor thy Father and thy Mother.

This depends upon your relationship with your parents, though in general - sure.

Goes with the whole respect thing. I'm guessing you wouldn't...

6. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Some people desire open relationships and adultery in itself is not actually illegal.

Legal or illegal, it is still frowned upon enough to make politicians step down or get blasted out of office for it. So again, still relevant and applicable.

 

[Skavau]

In defence of my post, I will reference what you originally said:

Got evidence for why those [the 10 commandments] shouldn't be followed, or just trying to irritate?

Millions find it relevant or meaningful. So, what's your argument for it being inapplicable or out of date or irrelevant?

That's why I said it is not relevant to me and those that do follow it do so by definition of being a Christian. There ought certainly be no law against holding another God higher than the Biblical God. Do you dispute that? Do you think that I, as an atheist should have to follow the first commandment?

And respect is not important? I'm guessing you wouldn't walk up to a pastor and tell his Jesus to go _ himself out of respect. So what's the issue here?

That blasphemy should not be illegal. If I want start insulting Christianity in a private blog, I should be allowed to. If I wanted to start drawing obscene pictures of Jesus I should be allowed to.

What, so rest is bad now? Since when?

Never said that. I said there should be no compulsion to keep the Sabbath day or rest only on the Sabbath Day. Why are you drawing strawmen from my arguments?

Goes with the whole respect thing. I'm guessing you wouldn't...

That depends on the parents again. Some kids have every right to be extremely offensive to their parents.

Legal or illegal, it is still frowned upon enough to make politicians step down or get blasted out of office for it. So again, still relevant and applicable.

Not all. Perhaps in America.

 

[badtim]

now with more multi-quote-response goodness!

I can think of a few books by Darwin I can now discard.

Since now of course we have better science.

true. Origin of Species is a monumental work in the history of science, though the core of it is still valid. if you're going to go about posing it as the cutting edge of biology, you're a very silly person

Humanism ALWAYS breaks down to lascivious licentiousness.

Just like Religion ALWAYS breaks down into pogroms and holy wars, amirite?

Got evidence for why those shouldn't be followed, or just trying to irritate? I'd love to know when it's a good idea to murder someone, steal, or cheat.

which set? the first or the second?

 

[chris4243]

Humanism ALWAYS breaks down to lascivious licentiousness.

From what I've seen, it usually boils down to "love your neighbor as yourself". Show a humanist that something causes harm, and they will say that is a bad thing. (But tell them they must acknowledge something's harmfulness because it is forbidden in the Bible and they will laugh at you.)

 

[Eudaimonist]

Humanism ALWAYS breaks down to lascivious licentiousness.

What do you mean by "humanism"?

And, more importantly, what do you mean by "lascivious licentiousness"? Can you give some examples? I'm not certain what your standards for this are. Do you mean kissing on the first date? Holding hands? What, exactly?

I personally have high standards of sexual ethics, higher than most people I know. Those standards might not match yours in all respects, but they are not some "free love" hedonism.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[belarm]

From what I've seen, it usually boils down to "love your neighbor as yourself". Show a humanist that something causes harm, and they will say that is a bad thing. (But tell them they must acknowledge something's harmfulness because it is forbidden in the Bible and they will laugh at you.)

This is a pretty spot-on summation of Humanism as I understand it. I would broaden it to include any authoritarian justification of morality as laughable, however. Any command to do x because y says so holds little merit in a moral context.

One thing I haven't seen brought up in this thread is that a belief that morality is subjective and evolves over time opens one up to the possibility that their concept of morality could be entirely mistaken, and to the idea that we must continue working, bearing history in mind at all times, to create a better morality in the future.

Of course, that's an argument from consequence - it does not mean I'm right, but perhaps it will provide some elucidation as to why those of us who are not believers feel this is an important point on which to stick to our guns. I fear Christian morality as a power in society because I believe it stems from untrue assumptions. The Bible has many good ideas, but it also has many that are not conducive to a peaceful, just society, at least in our time.