Does morality exist without God?

[Niels]

That may be an interesting question. However, my issue with this is a different one. If you
a. define "God" as TWWNE and
b. call existence "God",
you get "existence is that without which nothing exists". That´s word salad.

On another note, in an above paragraph you spoke of God as "the creator".
Existence doesn´t create - existence is the state of that which exists.
IOW, at every corner I sense that "TWWNE" - although it´s certainly a nice soundbite and almost meaningless phrase and therefore easier to defend - does not really cover the idea of "God" you are talking about, and even conflicts with other parts of your concept.

Word salad, or another way of saying "it is what it is"?

In all fairness though, I can see how my terminology might seem a little sloppy. I have applied the word "existence" in two ways: 1. The very concept or nature of existence, and 2. Matter and whatnot. The second depends on the first in order to be.

Anyway, I should probably stop derailing the thread. This will be my last post that doesn't directly address the OP.

 

[Eudaimonist]

atheists ..

ie scoffers will know the truth eventually..

Or scoffers who know the truth right now.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Mling]

Jumping in late, so this might not be very original, but it'll get the thread back to the OP:

"Morality" exists the same way "beauty" exists, which is to say...it doesn't, really, but it's still a meaningful and useful idea.

Light exists, and air. Our eyes interpret the light as colors, contrasts, edges, lines. Our ears interpret the vibration of the air as sound. In certain combinations, our minds interpret certain images, and certain sounds (and lots of other things) as appealing. If you want to talk about things that categorically "exist," you'd have to talk about the light and the air, or simplify and talk directly about the images and patterns that they make. Talking about the psychological appeal of those images and sound-patterns is perfectly valid, and labeling it aesthetics or beauty is fine. It's something worth exploring, and it's even something that you could analyze and find data about. But it's useful to remember once in a while that you're talking about an abstract description of a psychological experience, and not something that truly "exists" in the world outside your head.

In the same way, morality doesn't really exist. But things are built and destroyed, and people still feel pleasure and pain, and people die at differing rates and live with differing levels of comfort depending on lots of different factors. A particular action can be shown to cause pain, pleasure, happiness, depression, destruction, edification or lots of other effects.

If you want to talk about the effects of actions, it's definitely a worthwhile pursuit, and if you want to analyze it, there is plenty there to analyze. If you want to talk about it in more philosophical or mystical ways, there is plenty to think about. If you want to just feel it, well, people have empathy, so there's plenty of ways to go about it like that, too.

There is a lot of substance to the idea of morality...but don't make the mistake of thinking it really exists.

Or rather... morality doesn't really exist, but don't make the mistake of assuming that means it isn't meaningful.

 

[rjc34]

Word salad, or another way of saying "it is what it is"?

In all fairness though, I can see how my terminology might seem a little sloppy. I have applied the word "existence" in two ways: 1. The very concept or nature of existence, and 2. Matter and whatnot. The second depends on the first in order to be.

Anyway, I should probably stop derailing the thread. This will be my last post that doesn't directly address the OP.

(Sorry to keep this going, but the discussion was getting more interesting!)

Do you define your god as 'existing'? And if so, how do you determine it's existence from non-existence?

 

[AGODBELIEVERlove1stfaith2]

signs of the time r lingering

 

[Upisoft]

signs of the time r lingering

Bermuda triangle at work...

 

[Eudaimonist]

signs of the time r lingering

Cthulhu waits, dreaming.


Iä! Iä!

Mark

 

[CaliforniaSun]

signs of the time r lingering

Indeed. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
YouTube - Prince - Sign 'O' the Times(Music Video)

 

[SonOfTheWest]

If indicators like crime rates,etc hold any weight in regards to evaluating the morality of a country. It is interesting to note some of the least religious countries in the world have low crime rates, STDS among it's population, abortion rates,teen pregnancies,etc. Where as many highly religious countries rate much higher.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

If indicators like crime rates,etc hold any weight in regards to evaluating the morality of a country. It is interesting to note some of the least religious countries in the world have low crime rates, STDS among it's population, abortion rates,teen pregnancies,etc. Where as many highly religious countries rate much higher.

This is true, in spite of the fact, that in the U.S., we live longer and are safer than we have ever been.

 

[Mling]

This is true, in spite of the fact, that in the U.S., we live longer and are safer than we have ever been.

Yup--we haven't become as long-lived, safe, or happy as people in Sweden or Norway, though. Or, if memory serves, France or Germany. Or England. Or Denmark....

 

[AGODBELIEVERlove1stfaith2]

do atheists have more morals than christians ?

Yup--we haven't become as long-lived, safe, or happy as people in Sweden or Norway, though. Or, if memory serves, France or Germany. Or England. Or Denmark....

 

[variant]

I'm just calling it as I see it.

Please explain what you mean by "strong force", why worship is relevant to your point.

For my purposes It's a force without which the universe would cease to exist.

I would never call it "God" but your definition requires that it is one. It betrays the weakness and utter meaninglessness of your definition.

Your definition is not definitive.

Since I don't know what came first anything that is required for the universes existence is a candidate to be God.

Perhaps It could be called utterly useless instead of non-definitive.

I'm simply sharing my views. For God to be "The Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end", the term "God" necessarily refers to that without which nothing exists. Anything less fails to meet the criteria.

Your definition is circular and meaningless.

Example:

The strongmitance is the sentence that explains everything in existence.

Have I just proven that the strongmitance exists?

Obviously not.

You apparently define God differently... perhaps like a Flying Spaghetti Monster, or something along those lines. Do my thoughts only count if I support something silly like that? If so, I'm not going to waste my time.

It just bothers me when fellow believers claim that nonbelievers can't be moral. My intent was to address their views rather than yours. They are likely starting from the point of view that everything is from God.

Your statement is simply unsupported.

If all things flow from the same source. It doesn't necessarily follow that we should all have access to morality.

 

[Syrokal]

I have to say, that while it is nice to fall back on the argument that Morality is a reflection of God's commands, when we put into practice and apply even the most fundamental aspects of Logic to the statement we see that it's just ridiculous and becomes a falicious closed loop.

 

[Mling]

do atheists have more morals than christians ?

I think so, yes, but only if you keep it in the plural like that. I wouldn't assume that any given atheist is more moral than any given Christian, but I do think that, on average, atheists are the more moral group.

I define morality as acting in ways which edify, rather than harm.

 

[Syrokal]

I think so, yes, but only if you keep it in the plural like that. I wouldn't assume that any given atheist is more moral than any given Christian, but I do think that, on average, atheists are the more moral group.

I define morality as acting in ways which edify, rather than harm.

I agree, weather we admit it or not, our gut reaction is to identify Morally Right as thing's which promote health, well being, growth and happiness,(Or minimize the oposites) and Morally Wrong as thing's that promote harm, suffering, negative growth and sorrow.(or minimize the opposites).

It's really the only way you can meaningfully define Morality.

 

[Mling]

I agree, weather we admit it or not, our gut reaction is to identify Morally Right as thing's which promote health, well being, growth and happiness,(Or minimize the oposites) and Morally Wrong as thing's that promote harm, suffering, negative growth and sorrow.(or minimize the opposites).

It's really the only way you can meaningfully define Morality.

Meaningfully define--. Unfortunately, a lot of people do define it otherwise, and end up with a meaningless sense of morality. More common, I think, are people who, at their core, recognize that that is the only meaningful way to think about morality, but feel compelled to try to force what they believe into a different mold--there's a lot of propaganda around saying that if you base your morality only on what hurts or heals, you're going to fall victim to your own emotions, and then you'll just start doing whatever you want because it's good for you, and next thing you know, you're out raping puppies.

 

[Syrokal]

Meaningfully define--. Unfortunately, a lot of people do define it otherwise, and end up with a meaningless sense of morality. More common, I think, are people who, at their core, recognize that that is the only meaningful way to think about morality, but feel compelled to try to force what they believe into a different mold--there's a lot of propaganda around saying that if you base your morality only on what hurts or heals, you're going to fall victim to your own emotions, and then you'll just start doing whatever you want because it's good for you, and next thing you know, you're out raping puppies.

Exactly which is why the concept of "Promoting health, well being happiness ect" applies to your community and fellow man as much if not more than yourself.

As much as I love God, I see no way to reconcile Morality being based solely of him as sensible.

 

[Mling]

Exactly which is why the concept of "Promoting health, well being happiness ect" applies to your community and fellow man as much if not more than yourself.

As much as I love God, I see no way to reconcile Morality being based solely of him as sensible.

 

[67cam]

since this is only my 3rd post, I can't post links. So I suggest you go to the Council for Secular Humanism.org, go to their "dangerous reading" page, and read the article called "The Myth of Secular Moral Chaos" by Sam Harris.

In fact the only _true_ morality is a secular one...