Does morality exist without God?

[razeontherock]

Doesn´t follow.

Yes it does. If you can't show such a distinction, you are showing that your morality is at least influenced by the Judeo-Christian tradition. And by extension, you tacitly admit there is no morality w/o G-d.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Yes it does. If you can't show such a distinction, you are showing that your morality is at least influenced by the Judeo-Christian tradition. And by extension, you tacitly admit there is no morality w/o G-d.

No, it does not follow. Analogy is different to homology; all he has to prove is that morality arose from a different source, or that it arose before, Christianity.

 

[razeontherock]

From the killing 2 birds with one stone Dep't:

Underpressure wrote:

"It's quite clear we ignore the things we don't like and the things that we think are outdated." And this response followed:

THIS exactly! razeontherock feel free to read what underpressure has written a few times over if you need to... he/she has it nailed down perfectly...

This is but one of countless dead-wrong conclusions and assumptions, in an incredibly loaded short little paragraph. Your agreement to it speaks volumes ...

do you have the integrity to examine the contents?

 

[razeontherock]

No, it does not follow. Analogy is different to homology; all he has to prove is that morality arose from a different source, or that it arose before, Christianity.

Irrelevant. Your scenario would prove 1 G-d, over all the Earth

 

[underpressure]

Well this loaded statement here sure lives up to your username!!!

We could spend a while unpacking this; probably several threads. I could point you to a few to give you a head start ...

I imagine it would be a long reply if you decided to justify why you pick and choose your morals, but pick and choose you undoubtedly do.

I don't think it is anything to be ashamed of, everyone does it, if your values are carefully thought through then you don't need to justify yourself to me (and if your values aren't carefully thought through, then you still don't need to justify yourself to me!).

 

[razeontherock]

I imagine it would be a long reply if you decided to justify why you pick and choose your morals, but pick and choose you undoubtedly do.

I don't think it is anything to be ashamed of, everyone does it, if your values are carefully thought through then you don't need to justify yourself to me (and if your values aren't carefully thought through, then you still don't need to justify yourself to me!).

Well this is one of the more rational statements I have ever seen on this board in that I certainly do not aim to "justify myself." Your grave error is in thinking the Bible must be "picked and chosen" through, rather than taken as a whole. Insane asylums have plenty that have done exactly that, and i think it is a real warning that doing so will drive you crazy. CF has many self-professed "Ex-Christians" who also did various versions of the same thing, and I have found a pattern that they were correct to get away from the falsehood(s) they had perceived as christianity.

If you merely wish to retract your previous statement as over-the-top angst that you have no need to spread further, I'll let it go

On the other hand, finding the cohesiveness throughout the entire Bible is a process that brings one to the Truth of G-d!

 

[quatona]

Yes it does. If you can't show such a distinction, you are showing that your morality is at least influenced by the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Doesn´t necessarily follow.

And by extension, you tacitly admit there is no morality w/o G-d.

Doesn´t follow at all.

 

[underpressure]

Well this is one of the more rational statements I have ever seen on this board in that I certainly do not aim to "justify myself." Your grave error is in thinking the Bible must be "picked and chosen" through, rather than taken as a whole. Insane asylums have plenty that have done exactly that, and i think it is a real warning that doing so will drive you crazy. CF has many self-professed "Ex-Christians" who also did various versions of the same thing, and I have found a pattern that they were correct to get away from the falsehood(s) they had perceived as christianity.

If you merely wish to retract your previous statement as over-the-top angst that you have no need to spread further, I'll let it go

On the other hand, finding the cohesiveness throughout the entire Bible is a process that brings one to the Truth of G-d!

I don't mean to upset or rile you, your beliefs are not really any of my business, but regardless of the fact you believe the bible must be taken as a whole, the fact remains that you either do follow all the moral guidelines laid out in the bible, or you don't follow every last one. There is no 3rd choice here.

 

[razeontherock]

you either do follow all the moral guidelines laid out in the bible, or you don't follow every last one. There is no 3rd choice here.

Which doesn't result in needing to literally follow bad examples ...

 

[Aryn9189]

Aren't some of the bad examples made by God himself though? Like, didn't he order genocide a couple times? Are you saying that was moral?

 

[razeontherock]

There are some tough portions of Scripture in the OT, no doubt. For people wanting a relationship with G-d, reading the Bible can help with that and I earnestly believe that includes the difficult passages as well. You can find me tackle this one, gathering all pertinent info I could find in one thread, in CWR in our Outreach section," Maltheism and Numbers 17."

For those who doubt G-d's existence, I really don't think that reading these tough passages is a good idea, and the Jefferson Bible might actually prove to be a better resource ...

 

[razeontherock]

i've read the bible. i was raised for 16 years of my life as a catholic so suffice it to say, i am familiar with the book.

Rather, I would conclude that this is solid evidence you are NOT familiar with it, but indoctrinated in the ideas of men. Glad to see you turned your back on that!

surely when you say the whole bible is a moral guide, i assume you only take your morals from the new testament... well i hope...

The words "moral guide" are your's, not mine. Please hear that you do not have any exposure to taking the Bible as a whole at face value; it's just not how RC operates.

as for Jefferson's translation of the bible. it teaches the same morals as the new testament. forgiveness, love, fairness, only without the spiritual coating.

Interesting choice of words. I assert you cannot possibly approach the subjects of forgiveness, love, or fairness, without also embracing Spirituality, as these are Spiritual in nature.

 

[RagingIndifference]

Rather, I would conclude that this is solid evidence you are NOT familiar with it, but indoctrinated in the ideas of men. Glad to see you turned your back on that!

Lolwut? The words are right on the pages. I don't think "the ideas of men" would play any part in what you read. Other than the initial writing down of the words, and the translations and retranslations.

The words "moral guide" are your's, not mine. Please hear that you do not have any exposure to taking the Bible as a whole at face value; it's just not how RC operates.

If you've read it, you've been exposed to it. That is all.

Interesting choice of words. I assert you cannot possibly approach the subjects of forgiveness, love, or fairness, without also embracing Spirituality, as these are Spiritual in nature.

"You do not need the Bible to justify love, but no better tool has been invented to justify hate." - Richard A. Weatherwax

Last time I checked the only criteria for "forgiveness, love, and fairness" were to have emotions. Religion is utterly irrelevant to these characteristics.

 

[razeontherock]

More failed than just code ...

 

[darwinian12345]

13(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

14For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another Romans 2:13-15

How on earth can morality exist without the Standard of Righteousness? God has written His truth on every man's heart, and that is why people have a conscience and know not to do certain things, like murder, even though no one tells them to not.

It DOES exist without god. It's something our complex brains and society have come up with over the many millions of years...

 

[razeontherock]

Which merely assumes that over said time, G-d has not existed.

 

[underpressure]

There are some tough portions of Scripture in the OT, no doubt. For people wanting a relationship with G-d, reading the Bible can help with that and I earnestly believe that includes the difficult passages as well. You can find me tackle this one, gathering all pertinent info I could find in one thread, in CWR in our Outreach section," Maltheism and Numbers 17."

For those who doubt G-d's existence, I really don't think that reading these tough passages is a good idea, and the Jefferson Bible might actually prove to be a better resource ...

Why do you say that out of curiosity?

 

[razeontherock]

Faith is a matter of the "heart," not of intellectual assent. On CF I have detected a very consistent pattern of those reading the Bible extensively but with clearly the "wrong attitude," having their hearts turned away from G-d, much like the troublesome statement that G-d "hardened Pharaoh's heart."

OTOH, the Jefferson Bible will bring one to the milk of the word, and it's pretty hard to go wrong there.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Faith is a matter of the "heart," not of intellectual assent. On CF I have detected a very consistent pattern of those reading the Bible extensively but with clearly the "wrong attitude," having their hearts turned away from G-d, much like the troublesome statement that G-d "hardened Pharaoh's heart."

The problem is that when you say the "wrong attitude", what you mean is "a viewpoint that disagrees with mine".

 

[underpressure]

Faith is a matter of the "heart," not of intellectual assent. On CF I have detected a very consistent pattern of those reading the Bible extensively but with clearly the "wrong attitude," having their hearts turned away from G-d, much like the troublesome statement that G-d "hardened Pharaoh's heart."

OTOH, the Jefferson Bible will bring one to the milk of the word, and it's pretty hard to go wrong there.

Well if I consider myself open to all possibilities then I should read it.

But what kind of attitude am I supposed to have when I read it?