Does morality exist without God?

[Eudaimonist]

Then they would not be an atheist?

Precisely. They would be failed theists. Or perhaps maltheists. In any case, they'd be theists, not atheists.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[physicalreality]

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 ,,,...

There is definitely morality without God. Before the Bible and before Jesus, there was morality. Explorers who happen upon tribes in the jungle that have never had contact with the outside world can see that the tribes have morals and they are universal-- don't harm your fellow man, don't lie, don't steal, have faith to your partner... people don't need God to have morality. Plain and simple. In fact, people don't need God to make decisions, or for anything really. The responsibility of how you treat others and what is acceptable to do is on you. In the end, you make the decision as far as what to do. Christianity shoulders the blame from the individual to the Almighty... saying "I'm sorry" after repeating the same sin over and over seems ridiculous. That doesn't teach you responsibility for your actions...that just lets you get away with stuff by passing it on to Jesus. You (and all the world) can be good without God

 

[GrowingSmaller]

There is definitely morality without God.

It is not absolutaly certain there is not a God upon which everything else depends. For anyone who claims "there is no such god" it is possible that they are mistaken. So you might be definite, but not absolutely certain.

 

[physicalreality]

It is not absolutaly certain there is not a God upon which everything else depends. For anyone who claims "there is no such god" it is possible that they are mistaken. So you might be definite, but not absolutely certain.

I am absolutely certain that there is morality without God.

 

[TomZzyzx]

There is definitely morality without God. Before the Bible and before Jesus, there was morality. Explorers who happen upon tribes in the jungle that have never had contact with the outside world can see that the tribes have morals and they are universal-- don't harm your fellow man, don't lie, don't steal, have faith to your partner... people don't need God to have morality. Plain and simple. In fact, people don't need God to make decisions, or for anything really. The responsibility of how you treat others and what is acceptable to do is on you. In the end, you make the decision as far as what to do. Christianity shoulders the blame from the individual to the Almighty... saying "I'm sorry" after repeating the same sin over and over seems ridiculous. That doesn't teach you responsibility for your actions...that just lets you get away with stuff by passing it on to Jesus. You (and all the world) can be good without God

Good in who's eyes? The only Morality you can have without God is a subjective, relativistic morality. What ever one believes to be right or wrong is true to him. Everyone can have their own idea of what is right and wrong. God's morality is absolute and objective. If something is right or wrong, then it's right or wrong for everyone.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Good in who's eyes?

Good in each individual's eyes of course, although "good" and "evil" aren't very useful terms.

The only Morality you can have without God is a subjective, relativistic morality.

And? My morality coincides for the most part with most theists I know. Except for the ones that aren't as honest as I am of course...

What ever one believes to be right or wrong is true to him. Everyone can have their own idea of what is right and wrong.

I believe your first sentence is false. Moral statements like "X is good." aren't truth statements. They're statements of preference. Like "Chocolate ice cream is good." Chocolate ice cream isn't objectively good, so there's an implicit "to me" that should be added to the sentence, "Chocolate ice cream is good to me.". That same "to me" should be added to moral statements.

And what does it matter that everyone has a different version of "right" and "wrong"? If I poll 100 Christians, do you think I'll get the exact same answers to moral questions? Hint: I wont.

For the most part, our morals are intersubjective, meaning that we tend to agree on the big things. It's a nature + nurture development.

God's morality is absolute and objective. If something is right or wrong, then it's right or wrong for everyone.

What's your answer to the Euthyphro Dilemma?

 

[TomZzyzx]

Good in each individual's eyes of course, although "good" and "evil" aren't very useful terms.

And? My morality coincides for the most part with most theists I know. Except for the ones that aren't as honest as I am of course...

I believe your first sentence is false. Moral statements like "X is good." aren't truth statements. They're statements of preference. Like "Chocolate ice cream is good." Chocolate ice cream isn't objectively good, so there's an implicit "to me" that should be added to the sentence, "Chocolate ice cream is good to me.". That same "to me" should be added to moral statements.

And what does it matter that everyone has a different version of "right" and "wrong"? If I poll 100 Christians, do you think I'll get the exact same answers to moral questions? Hint: I wont.

For the most part, our morals are intersubjective, meaning that we tend to agree on the big things. It's a nature + nurture development.

What's your answer to the Euthyphro Dilemma?

Sorry, I was asking "physicalreality" the question, and "good" was his word. I use "right" and "wrong" not "good" and "evil".

Your morality might coincide with most theist you know but what if your neighbor's morality tells him that murder is ok, that rape is just fine, that torturing children for fun is his favorite hobby because his morality says it's ok to do. And that answers your question "what does it matter that everyone has a different version of "right" and "wrong"?". It matters a lot if you think murder is wrong and your neighbor think murder is right.

It doesn't matter how many Christians you ask, all that matters is that there are moral absolutes. Absolute "right" and "wrong" are true for everyone whether they believe it or not.

It would take a lot of time and space to speak about Euthyphro's Dilemma. I will ask you to please read an article on "Stand To Reason's" web site, str.org. Search for "Euthyphro's Dilemma" and you will find an article by Greg Koukl that explains a Christian response to "Euthyphro's Dilemma".

 

[quatona]

Your morality might coincide with most theist you know but what if your neighbor's morality tells him that murder is ok, that rape is just fine, that torturing children for fun is his favorite hobby because his morality says it's ok to do.

My problem would be even greater if god´s morality would tell us that all these things are right and fine.
This is not a very good argument (argument from consequence, to be precise) for accepting a morality just because it is objective and/or absolute.

 

[quatona]

It doesn't matter how many Christians you ask, all that matters is that there are moral absolutes.

In which way/for what would that matter, exactly?

 

[TomZzyzx]

In which way/for what would that matter, exactly?

I'm sorry, I don't understand what your asking, can you restate your question,.

 

[chris4243]

Your morality might coincide with most theist you know but what if your neighbor's morality tells him that murder is ok, that rape is just fine, that torturing children for fun is his favorite hobby because his morality says it's ok to do. And that answers your question "what does it matter that everyone has a different version of "right" and "wrong"?". It matters a lot if you think murder is wrong and your neighbor think murder is right.

And do you believe you could prove to said person that murder is wrong? (note: proving to yourself is circular reasoning and doesn't count)

On the other hand, we usually kill or lock up people who commit murder, and we outnumber them by far. We may not be able to prove them wrong, but we can prove them dead.

 

[TomZzyzx]

My problem would be even greater if god´s morality would tell us that all these things are right and fine.
This is not a very good argument (argument from consequence, to be precise) for accepting a morality just because it is objective and/or absolute.

Yes, but you don't have that problem because God morality does not tell you that these things are right and fine. God's morality tells us these things are wrong. Like I said before, God's morality is objective and absolute whether you accept it or not. With out absolute objective morality everyone's morality is right, even murders. Where do you get your morality from?

 

[TomZzyzx]

And do you believe you could prove to said person that murder is wrong? (note: proving to yourself is circular reasoning and doesn't count)

On the other hand, we usually kill or lock up people who commit murder, and we outnumber them by far. We may not be able to prove them wrong, but we can prove them dead.

Yes, by showing him that God sent his Son to earth to pay for our sins by sacrificing his life so that we may have eternal life. He may not believe it, but then God says not everyone will inherit eternal life. By the way, an atheistic, relativistic, subjective morality can not tell the murderer that he's wrong. Because everyone's morality is right.

 

[chris4243]

Yes, by showing him that God sent his Son to earth to pay for our sins by sacrificing his life so that we may have eternal life. He may not believe it, but then God says not everyone will inherit eternal life. By the way, an atheistic, relativistic, subjective morality can not tell the murderer that he's wrong. Because everyone's morality is right.

Why do you say "yes" but then answer "no"? You can prove to someone God exists, yet choose not to?

 

[Ration]

Like "Chocolate ice cream is good." Chocolate ice cream isn't objectively good

Yes it is, and it is morally wrong to say it isn't.

 

[TomZzyzx]

Why do you say "yes" but then answer "no"? You can prove to someone God exists, yet choose not to?

What! I didn't say any of that. I don't know what your reading, but don't put words in my mouth. Or in this case my fingers.

 

[mzungu]

Good in who's eyes? The only Morality you can have without God is a subjective, relativistic morality. What ever one believes to be right or wrong is true to him. Everyone can have their own idea of what is right and wrong. God's morality is absolute and objective. If something is right or wrong, then it's right or wrong for everyone.

So when God demands we kill disobedient children or put to death witches etc then it is immoral to question the morality behind such commandments?

 

[mzungu]

Is the story of Adam and Eve moral? If I am to accept the notion that morality can only exist with God then this video is pertinent to whether this type of morality is truly moral or not:

In the beginning, God created injustice - YouTube

 

[razeontherock]

Then they would not be an atheist?

How can you pull this out of my phrase "the only atheists that are truly w/o God"

Do try to keep up, eh?

 

[razeontherock]

Most atheists I know are better versed in religion than most religious people.

Red herring. I accept if you can't handle the truth I presented in any better way.