Does morality exist without God?

[badtim]

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.

depends on how you define "subjective" (no, not going to go into sematic argumentation mode here). for myself, morality definitely is a relative thing, primarily relative to those, in any particular situation, who are involved, but i see it as a continuum ranging from the individual at the smallest level, to the group / society at the largest -- "society" including all with any sort of relevant interest in the situation, which doesn't necessarily exclude other religions, nations, etc. -- but there is definitely a reality-based component too. morality is not simply all subjective opinion, and all moral systems are not equal; i have yet to actually encounter anyone who really operates on a basis such as that, regardless of their philosophy.

there's no hard-line, black and white way to look at it, really. as is said, "one law for the lion and the lamb is tyrrany", and i don't think that historical moral / ethical structures are all equally qualified to make all normative moral statements in the modern context. all are lacking, to one degree or another, and i mean all -- both systems based in religion, as well as systems based in logic or philosophy.

 

[Zebra1552]

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




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?

Your faith icon says otherwise. I never argued you should think a certain way, I argued that it was still relevant and applicable to today and I aptly demonstrated this. It need not be relevant to everyone to be relevant.

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.

I'm sorry, but where did I argue- or the Bible for that matter- that the Decalogue should be a matter of obligation or law. It is for those who submit to it, however, and that makes it relevant.

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?

Why do you from mine? I merely argued that it is relevant.

 

[Skavau]

Your faith icon says otherwise.

Eh? My faith icon says I am a humanist.

I never argued you should think a certain way, I argued that it was still relevant and applicable to today and I aptly demonstrated this. It need not be relevant to everyone to be relevant.

It is not applicable morally. It is a command for obedience to authority. In any case, its relevance is about as meaningful as any affirmation of belief out there.

I'm sorry, but where did I argue- or the Bible for that matter- that the Decalogue should be a matter of obligation or law. It is for those who submit to it, however, and that makes it relevant.

So your argument now seems to be "The 10 commandments are relevant to those who accept the 10 commandments". No argument there. Your original argument focused on asking someone why the 10 commandments should not be followed. Given that the first 2 are based solely on and in the context of believing in God, you've changed your argument somewhat.

Why do you from mine? I merely argued that it is relevant.

And what strawman do I draw from yours, sir?

 

[Zebra1552]

It is not applicable morally. It is a command for obedience to authority. In any case, its relevance is about as meaningful as any affirmation of belief out there.

It is a command for respect. Respect is quite basic and is often taught in schools to this day.

So your argument now seems to be "The 10 commandments are relevant to those who accept the 10 commandments". No argument there. Your original argument focused on asking someone why the 10 commandments should not be followed. Given that the first 2 are based solely on and in the context of believing in God, you've changed your argument somewhat.


And what strawman do I draw from yours, sir?

That I believe you should follow the Bible and would argue with you about it. I do, but I'm not going to argue with you about it. I neither know you personally or debate things that make debates personal over the internet.

 

[Skavau]

It is a command for respect. Respect is quite basic and is often taught in schools to this day.

That's one way of looking at it. I don't share that view. It is a command for subservience to authority. It is certainly not something you should teach children if you want them to gain critical thinking skills.

That I believe you should follow the Bible and would argue with you about it. I do, but I'm not going to argue with you about it. I neither know you personally or debate things that make debates personal over the internet.

That was not a strawman. That was what I read you said originally. You asked:

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

To me that seemed to imply that you considered all of the 10 commandments something that should be followed by everyone.

 

[AGODBELIEVERlove1stfaith2]

am not inciting division



secular society

where are the morals?

secular , that word implies evil huh??

ie

war ... we fight for our countries == patroitism

crime ... we kill to steal or etc ... mother kills ... fathers ... strangers as serial killers... manslaughter...pre meditated... 1st degree murder .. 2nd degree ... homocide / suicide .. genocide

legal / legatimatized abortion ... assisted suicide

 

[variant]

am not inciting division



secular society

where are the morals?

secular , that word implies evil huh??

ie

war ... we fight for our countries == patroitism

crime ... we kill to steal or etc ... mother kills ... fathers ... strangers as serial killers... manslaughter...pre meditated... 1st degree murder .. 2nd degree ... homocide / suicide .. genocide

legal / legatimatized abortion ... assisted suicide

I would work on your grammar if you wish to be understood.

All that punctuation and not a single intelligible sentence.

 

[AGODBELIEVERlove1stfaith2]

why would morality be subjective?


many choose to do good

and vice versa..

depends on how you define "subjective" (no, not going to go into sematic argumentation mode here). for myself, morality definitely is a relative thing, primarily relative to those, in any particular situation, who are involved, but i see it as a continuum ranging from the individual at the smallest level, to the group / society at the largest -- "society" including all with any sort of relevant interest in the situation, which doesn't necessarily exclude other religions, nations, etc. -- but there is definitely a reality-based component too. morality is not simply all subjective opinion, and all moral systems are not equal; i have yet to actually encounter anyone who really operates on a basis such as that, regardless of their philosophy.

there's no hard-line, black and white way to look at it, really. as is said, "one law for the lion and the lamb is tyrrany", and i don't think that historical moral / ethical structures are all equally qualified to make all normative moral statements in the modern context. all are lacking, to one degree or another, and i mean all -- both systems based in religion, as well as systems based in logic or philosophy.

 

[variant]

why would morality be subjective?


many choose to do good

and vice versa..

Who decides what is good?

If God decides what is good then how is morality not subjective?

 

[Stella Nova]

I can't say I've been following this post, but nontheless, I'd like to contribute - the morals of Christianity are horrific at best, with the advocation of genocide, infanticide, slavery, rape, and many other such things we now consider to be completely morally 'wrong.' Morals are by nature subjective, and are created by man.

 

[Zebra1552]

I can't say I've been following this post, but nontheless, I'd like to contribute - the morals of Christianity are horrific at best, with the advocation of genocide, infanticide, slavery, rape, and many other such things we now consider to be completely morally 'wrong.'

I'm sorry, but where does Christianity advocate such things? Cite your source.

 

[Zebra1552]

That's one way of looking at it. I don't share that view. It is a command for subservience to authority. It is certainly not something you should teach children if you want them to gain critical thinking skills.

Then how am I, a Christian, able to reason with you on such matters? I know plenty of Christians who hold to these morals and are quite apt in thinking critically.

That was not a strawman. That was what I read you said originally. You asked:

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

To me that seemed to imply that you considered all of the 10 commandments something that should be followed by everyone.

It was a question that you turned into an argument.

 

[Stella Nova]

I'm sorry, but where does Christianity advocate such things? Cite your source.

My source? It's the Bible. Perhaps you should brush up on it if you aren't familiar with the atrocities rampant throughout its contents.

 

[Zebra1552]

My source? It's the Bible. Perhaps you should brush up on it if you aren't familiar with the atrocities rampant throughout its contents.

Actions committed by characters in the Bible does not mean the Bible condones it today. I'm very familiar with my Bible, and nowhere do I see God condoning rape, slavery, infanticide, or genocide. What I do see is God giving specific commands to specific people for specific reasons.

Just as with Christian posters, 'The Bible sayz' is not evidence of anything. You must prove that the Bible actually says what you claim it says.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Actions committed by characters in the Bible does not mean the Bible condones it today. I'm very familiar with my Bible, and nowhere do I see God condoning rape, slavery, infanticide, or genocide. What I do see is God giving specific commands to specific people for specific reasons.

Oh, "specific reasons". That makes rape, slavery, infanticide, or genocide okay.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Skavau]

Then how am I, a Christian, able to reason with you on such matters? I know plenty of Christians who hold to these morals and are quite apt in thinking critically.

With no help from the command of subservience otherwise known as the first commandment. People are critical in spite of it.

It was a question that you turned into an argument.

No, your question was pretty clear-cut jaws. You asked it as if everyone should follow them.

 

[belarm]

depends on how you define "subjective"

You're right; I should clarify that a bit. Morality is subjective in two senses:
1. Not all elements of all systems of morality have been empirically tested, and on those matters we must either infer or guess what the right course of action is.
2. Not all people agree on what the goal of a moral system should be, what constitutes justice, which sacrifices are acceptable, etc. On those points, we all hold different ideas, and we have to reach some kind of consensus on them as they pertain to society-wide systems.

...but there is definitely a reality-based component too. morality is not simply all subjective opinion, and all moral systems are not equal; i have yet to actually encounter anyone who really operates on a basis such as that, regardless of their philosophy.

there's no hard-line, black and white way to look at it, really. as is said, "one law for the lion and the lamb is tyrrany", and i don't think that historical moral / ethical structures are all equally qualified to make all normative moral statements in the modern context. all are lacking, to one degree or another, and i mean all -- both systems based in religion, as well as systems based in logic or philosophy.

I agree; there is neither a simple dichotomy nor an all-encompassing continuum. Some systems of morals are demonstrably bad for society, but many seem roughly equivalent by our current metrics. In any event, you'll not find me professing such post-modernist drivel as 'all systems are equally valid' (unless it's a result of me not expressing myself clearly enough)

 

[chris4243]

I'm very familiar with my Bible, and nowhere do I see God condoning rape, slavery, infanticide, or genocide.

Perhaps you should try reading your Bible. For example, the commands God issued concerning taking of the Promised Land.

What I do see is God giving specific commands to specific people for specific reasons.

Can you command something without condoning your command?

 

[belarm]

I'm sorry, but where does Christianity advocate such things? Cite your source.

• Genocide and infanticide: 1 Samuel 1:2-3
• Infanticide: 1 Samuel 15:3
• And, of course, Psalm 137:9

"Happy [shall he be], that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." (KJV)/"Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks!" (NLV)
​

• Slavery: Leviticus 25:44-46
• Rape: Many examples, but the worst has to be Deuteronomy 22:28-29:

"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver.c He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."(KJV)
"Suppose a man has intercourse with a young woman who is a virgin but is not engaged to be married. If they are discovered, he must pay her father fifty pieces of silver.c Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he may never divorce her as long as he lives." (NLT)
​

Forcing a rape victim to marry her attacker is shockingly cruel.

Of course, these laws are very old, and may have even been improvements in some areas; that in no way changes the fact that by today's standards, any one of these actions would get you thrown in jail or flat-out executed in the areas of the world we commonly consider 'civilized'. The poster you were responding to probably should have cited sources, but these examples are relatively well-known (at least among us non-believers who've had these arguments with their faithful family members).

 

[AGODBELIEVERlove1stfaith2]

EXPLAIN

buildings without architects??



so does the universe has design therefore requires an architect??