Does morality exist without God?

[Mr. Pedantic]

something simple, who created Evil? good?

Humans.

 

[Eudaimonist]

something simple, who created Evil? good?

You should explain just what you mean by "Evil" and "good". If you mean who created good or evil motivations, it wasn't a "who", it was evolution.

If you mean who created ideas of Evil or good, it was human beings.

If you mean who creates the goodness (help) or evilness (harm) of actions, it was again not a "who", it was the Earth (through abiogenesis) for creating living things that could be helped or harmed.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[chris4243]

Does morality exist without God? Why would it?

Absolutely! For one thing, many people base their morality off the Golden Rule, despite lacking a belief in God. For another, it may perhaps be possible that we retain Adam and Eve's ability to know good and evil from when they ate from the tree.

Depending on how you define sin, there may be no sin without God, like there is no disobedience without an authority.

 

[Examine Yourselves]

Everyone has heard people quarreling. Sometimes it sounds funny and sometimes it sounds merely unpleasant; but however it sounds, I believe we can learn something very important from listening to the kind of things they say. They say things like this: "How'd you like it if anyone did the same to you?"-"That's my seat, I was there first"-"Leave him alone, he isn't doing you any harm"- "Why should you shove in first?"-"Give me a bite of your donut, I gave you a bite of mine"-"Come on, you promised." People say things like that every day, educated people as well as uneducated, and children as well as grown-ups. What is interesting about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man's behavior does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behavior which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies: "To hell with your standard." Nearly always he tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if it does there is some special excuse. He pretends there is some special reason in this particular case why the person who took the seat first should not keep it, or that things were quite different when he was given the bit of orange, or that something has turned up which lets him off keeping his promise.


The point is that some people have the idea that men determine what is basic morality, because different civilizations and different ages have had quite different moralities. But that would be incorrect. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If you take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of betraying all the people who had been kindest to him. Or one where a man is praised for abandoning his children. Name one civilization where being an Adulteress was something to be emulated. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to-whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you should not put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired.



But all you really have to do is look around you; whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining "It's not fair" before you can say Praise God. It seems, then, we are forced to believe in a real Right and Wrong. People may be sometimes mistaken about them, just as people sometimes get their math sums wrong; but they are not a matter of mere taste and opinion any more than the multiplication table.


One way of seeing that Moral Law is not simply one of humankind's instincts is this. If two instincts are in conflict, and there is nothing in a creature's mind except those two instincts, obviously the stronger of the two must win. But at those moments when we are most conscious of the Moral Law, it usually seems to be telling us to side with the weaker of the two impulses. You probably want to be safe much more than you want to help the man who is drowning: but the Moral Law tells you to help him all the same.


No Morality is a standard that has always existed and will always exist; that humankind fails so often at it, clearly points that the standard of what is moral and immoral comes from beyond man, it comes from God.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Everyone has heard people quarreling. Sometimes it sounds funny and sometimes it sounds merely unpleasant; but however it sounds, I believe we can learn something very important from listening to the kind of things they say. They say things like this: "How'd you like it if anyone did the same to you?"-"That's my seat, I was there first"-"Leave him alone, he isn't doing you any harm"- "Why should you shove in first?"-"Give me a bite of your donut, I gave you a bite of mine"-"Come on, you promised." People say things like that every day, educated people as well as uneducated, and children as well as grown-ups. What is interesting about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man's behavior does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behavior which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies: "To hell with your standard." Nearly always he tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if it does there is some special excuse. He pretends there is some special reason in this particular case why the person who took the seat first should not keep it, or that things were quite different when he was given the bit of orange, or that something has turned up which lets him off keeping his promise.


The point is that some people have the idea that men determine what is basic morality, because different civilizations and different ages have had quite different moralities. But that would be incorrect. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If you take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of betraying all the people who had been kindest to him. Or one where a man is praised for abandoning his children. Name one civilization where being an Adulteress was something to be emulated. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to-whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you should not put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired.



But all you really have to do is look around you; whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining "It's not fair" before you can say Praise God. It seems, then, we are forced to believe in a real Right and Wrong. People may be sometimes mistaken about them, just as people sometimes get their math sums wrong; but they are not a matter of mere taste and opinion any more than the multiplication table.


One way of seeing that Moral Law is not simply one of humankind's instincts is this. If two instincts are in conflict, and there is nothing in a creature's mind except those two instincts, obviously the stronger of the two must win. But at those moments when we are most conscious of the Moral Law, it usually seems to be telling us to side with the weaker of the two impulses. You probably want to be safe much more than you want to help the man who is drowning: but the Moral Law tells you to help him all the same.


No Morality is a standard that has always existed and will always exist; that humankind fails so often at it, clearly points that the standard of what is moral and immoral comes from beyond man, it comes from God.

You know, I'm impressed. Because in all that, you still really haven't answered the central question to this thread, because the evidence you call up in support of your argument could just as well be used to support the argument that morality is an inherent property of humanity, or that morality is an inherent property of any stable society (your argument has a bit of confirmation bias and cherry picking, by the way). In fact, that might suit your evidence better, because you forget that pre-Christianity nobody gave a toss about what the Christian god thought.

 

[razeontherock]

because you forget that pre-Christianity nobody gave a toss about what the Christian god thought.

You forget that Judaism has the same G-d, and their traditions say mankind does not pre-date knowledge of Him. Pretty foolish analysis, don't you think?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

You forget that Judaism has the same G-d, and their traditions say mankind does not pre-date knowledge of Him. Pretty foolish analysis, don't you think?

Yes, it's foolish to think that mankind does not pre-date the concept of the Judeo Christian god.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

You forget that Judaism has the same G-d, and their traditions say mankind does not pre-date knowledge of Him. Pretty foolish analysis, don't you think?

Yeah, it seems really dumb. Who knew about god before mankind existed?

 

[mzungu]

Does morality exist without God? Why would it?
OR/
Why would it not?
There is secular morality and there is God's morality.
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." Isaiah 56: 8-9


we can treat people who we can see with respect n treat GOD with disarray and

how can we treat each other with no love whom we see daily but loves GOD whom we can not

vice versa ,,,...

Your logic is flawed. Morality is based on social norms which are specific to the society. Also morality is not static and the values change with time. Whether a society claims God to be the definitive force whereupon its moral codes are based is irrelevant.

Morality is a human invention that helps a society function.

What one society considers moral may be seen as immoral in another. For example: Christian Churches consider it immoral to carry weapons in Church while many Churches in Texas not only condone this practice but encourage it.

Many Christians Worldwide consider Capital punishment as immoral (as do I) but in America especially the south it is considered morally justifiable.

So in short God is not a prerequisite for morality!

Have a nice day

 

[Belk]

Everyone has heard people quarreling. Sometimes it sounds funny and sometimes it sounds merely unpleasant; but however it sounds, I believe we can learn something very important from listening to the kind of things they say. They say things like this: "How'd you like it if anyone did the same to you?"-"That's my seat, I was there first"-"Leave him alone, he isn't doing you any harm"- "Why should you shove in first?"-"Give me a bite of your donut, I gave you a bite of mine"-"Come on, you promised." People say things like that every day, educated people as well as uneducated, and children as well as grown-ups. What is interesting about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man's behavior does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behavior which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies: "To hell with your standard." Nearly always he tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if it does there is some special excuse. He pretends there is some special reason in this particular case why the person who took the seat first should not keep it, or that things were quite different when he was given the bit of orange, or that something has turned up which lets him off keeping his promise.


The point is that some people have the idea that men determine what is basic morality, because different civilizations and different ages have had quite different moralities. But that would be incorrect. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If you take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of betraying all the people who had been kindest to him. Or one where a man is praised for abandoning his children. Name one civilization where being an Adulteress was something to be emulated. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to-whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you should not put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired.



But all you really have to do is look around you; whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining "It's not fair" before you can say Praise God. It seems, then, we are forced to believe in a real Right and Wrong. People may be sometimes mistaken about them, just as people sometimes get their math sums wrong; but they are not a matter of mere taste and opinion any more than the multiplication table.


One way of seeing that Moral Law is not simply one of humankind's instincts is this. If two instincts are in conflict, and there is nothing in a creature's mind except those two instincts, obviously the stronger of the two must win. But at those moments when we are most conscious of the Moral Law, it usually seems to be telling us to side with the weaker of the two impulses. You probably want to be safe much more than you want to help the man who is drowning: but the Moral Law tells you to help him all the same.


No Morality is a standard that has always existed and will always exist; that humankind fails so often at it, clearly points that the standard of what is moral and immoral comes from beyond man, it comes from God.

The site frowns on Plagiarizing. Even from such Luminaries as C.S. Lewis. You might want to link your source next time.

Mere Christianity - The Law of Human Nature

 

[AGODBELIEVERlove1stfaith2]

we can worship GOD in vain
by following / teaching the doctrines of men

 

[mzungu]

It all boils down to this:

Why We Believe in Gods - Andy Thomson - American Atheists 09 - YouTube

 

[razeontherock]

Please tell me nobody actually spent an hour listening to an atheist guessing about the convictions of others

 

[Gracchus]

Please tell me nobody actually spent an hour listening to an atheist guessing about the convictions of others

Please tell me nobody actually spent two seconds considering the criticisms of someone who never even watched the video.

 

[razeontherock]

These trains of thought are hardly new, and they are devoid of revelation which means they don't consider the most basic facts on the topic.

 

[Gracchus]

These trains of thought are hardly new, and they are devoid of revelation which means they don't consider the most basic facts on the topic.

You didn't watch the video. One of the things that was pointed out is that the brain centers that light up on MRI's when we consider social questions are the same ones that light up when we consider religion.

And that is new stuff.

And there was more.

If you would like, we can discuss the points raised in the video, but there wouldn't be much point to that, until you actually watch it.

I understand that perhaps your faith is so weak that it must be carefully shielded from any challenge, but this video is about how religious thought relies on the same mechanisms as other social thought. It does not address the existence of deities.

 

[Aryn9189]

You should watch the video. I only made it through about half before I gave up (the captions are a nightmare to try and follow), but what I saw was interesting: it suggested just what Gracchus said, that religion is a social construct and is an essential part of being human, even if we later decide that it's not rational to believe in. (Much like children having an imaginary friend. When children grow up, they realize that imaginary friends are not logical. Some people need religion; some don't. When those that don't get past the stage of life where imaginary friends are logical, they stop believing in a god.)

 

[razeontherock]

I understand that perhaps your faith is so weak that it must be carefully shielded from any challenge,

Your goading is duly noted, and not reported. Consider that Mercy upon your own weakness, and do not expect a repeat. If you are probing for weakness, you need to look elsewhere!

but this video is about how religious thought relies on the same mechanisms as other social thought. It does not address the existence of deities.

Which is exactly where I came in. You completely missed the point, but felt compelled to be snide anyway. Duly noted.

 

[razeontherock]

religion is a social construct and is an essential part of being human

I agree religion is a social construct, and do not agree that it is essential to being human. Now you have to deal with the fact I do not have a religion, and I certainly don't practice one.

 

[razeontherock]

Please tell me you didn't read a book of around 1500 pages to assertain an unprovable history of the world

No worries; that is not why people read the Bible.