Does morality exist without God?

[Non sequitur]

Are you kidding me? Looks like you didn't even read what I said about Deut. 22:28-29. I said "Duet. 22:28-29 does not say rape is ok. In fact it says the opposite, it says that the man has violated her, and he must pay for his crime by giving money to the girls father." So I guess that does not make it "OK".

You are missing the point.

Your god regulated divorce and said he hated it.

Why didn't he "regulate" it (although, it's a stretch to say paying 50 shekels of silver is "fair") and say he hated it, as well?

He forgot to mention it?

 

[TomZzyzx]

You are missing the point.

Your god regulated divorce and said he hated it.

Why didn't he "regulate" it (although, it's a stretch to say paying 50 shekels of silver is "fair") and say he hated it, as well?

He forgot to mention it?

So now you saying that anything in the bible that God does not "regulate" and say that he hates, is not wrong after all. I guess it's ok to steal, to murder, dishonor your mother and father, or anything else God said we should not do. Really?

 

[razeontherock]

You are missing the point.

Your god regulated divorce and said he hated it.

Why didn't he "regulate" it (although, it's a stretch to say paying 50 shekels of silver is "fair") and say he hated it, as well?

He forgot to mention it?

It is you who miss the point. Why do you pretend to take up a Biblical point?

Serious question.

 

[razeontherock]

Concept formation.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Nope. You are imposing modern terms upon entirely foreign concepts. Language breaks down like that ...

 

[razeontherock]

Wait.... so going back... there are atheists who believe in free will? Is there some perception that there is some sort of limited feedback loop involving holes in the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics and the firing of neurons in our brains?? If so, how would that loop be initiated except through random chance, encounters with external stimuli that could not be controlled(i.e. not "free"), or other deterministic factors on their own terms?

I do see this as important, because I can't see the justification for "morality" in terms of judgment (i.e. you did something wrong, implying freedom of will) or any other level besides a utilitarian harm principle that is nonetheless aware that those who commit grievous violations of that principle are not actually responsible for their actions (and in fact, the entire concept of "self/they/etc..." falls apart into the gigantic web of physical interactions throughout the universe(s)). And even that harm principle would be pursued with the knowledge that active free will (in the immediate sense) is based solely on perception and the impossibility of a LaPlace's Daemon invading that perception!

IMHO.

This is how humanism teaches you to think?

 

[razeontherock]

You have this completely wrong. The only kind of morality you get without a moral law giver is a subjective, relativist morality. Two separate groups of people might have a different morality. One group might say that rape and murder is ok. We all need a moral law giver to tell us what is right and what is wrong.

Please don't overlook the obvious! Most of humanity shares basic morality, including much more than the aforementioned rape and murder. This is because we have the same "moral law giver," to use your term.

Our resident atheists like to attribute this to survival pressure, failing to recognize this too is the hand of G-d. ("Choose life" and all that)

 

[razeontherock]

Ok. Then no.

Not exactly living up to your username with this post!

 

[razeontherock]

If you think about it, what is free will? It's the ability (or appearance) to make decisions without outside constraints.

You may choose to express this concept in this way, and there are others who do that, too.

It is not what is meant by the term within Christianity.

 

[razeontherock]

The law given by a law giver would still be subjective.

If His perspective is such that the entire Earth is His footstool -- that's pretty objective!

 

[Toztabud]

Does morality exist without God?

Simple answer: No! One cannot find absolute morality if all morality is relitive, as humanists would have us believe. If we are simply animals, how can we expect to behave like anything but animals? Thus, anyone who believes in justifying morality must first justify we are not animals.

Assume this example:
A boy kills a pregnant woman.

Why has the boy done wrong? Survival of the fittest says that the strong survive, thus promoting the boy for his strength and disregarding the woman and child for their weakness. Unless we can prove that value is not relitive, the boy's killing cannot be condemned. Many animals will leave their weak to die, or kill them. How can we hope to have morals if there is no God to give them?

We are merely arguing that we ourselves are gods, despite lacking the power to uphold that claim. And if we are all gods, then who is there to tell us we are wrong?

Quote from Answers in Genesis (response to a feedback email):

Within a naturalistic, evolutionary worldview, morality is merely a matter of subjective opinion. So, whether something such as trickery or deception is wrong depends on each person—because it’s merely the result of chemical reactions in our brains.
I could just as easily say that this email we received is deceptive and full of wishful thinking. And if I get a big enough group together, we can decide that your definition of trickery is wrong. The combined random chemical reactions in our brains form the majority, which makes you wrong—at least until another majority comes along. Without any ultimate standard, we could go back and forth all day saying this is right or that is right.
As silly as this scenario sounds, it is one of the only arguments evolutionists have for anything that resembles morality. Absolute morals only make sense in a Christian worldview—they come from the One who knows what is good because He is the standard for good. The only One who fits that description is the God of the Bible, the Creator of the universe.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Simple answer: No! One cannot find absolute morality if all morality is relitive, as humanists would have us believe.

Which humanists are those? Humanists generally believe that one should strive for the good of humanity. I don't see them arguing for pure relativism.

If we are simply animals, how can we expect to behave like anything but animals? Thus, anyone who believes in justifying morality must first justify we are not animals.

According to humanists we are human animals, and this distinction from other animal species means that we need to discover what is appropriate for us as human beings.

How can we hope to have morals if there is no God to give them?

Humanists would likely argue that we may hope to have morals by discovering what sort of behaviors allow individuals and societies to flourish.

We are merely arguing that we ourselves are gods

Actually, no. This is not the only alternative. One could argue that human well-being sets the stardard for morality.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Non sequitur]

So now you saying that anything in the bible that God does not "regulate" and say that he hates, is not wrong after all. I guess it's ok to steal, to murder, dishonor your mother and father, or anything else God said we should not do. Really?

No.

Your original argument was, "Yeah but, he said he hated divorce..."

He makes rules for everything else and talks about how he hates it... but slavery.

I'm simply saying, why didn't he say he hated slavery?

 

[Non sequitur]

It is you who miss the point. Why do you pretend to take up a Biblical point?

Serious question.

Why did your god regulate the terms of slavery (paying a fine), but not talk about how he detests it or abolishes it?

Serious question.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Nope. You are imposing modern terms upon entirely foreign concepts. Language breaks down like that ...

His question was nearly unintelligible, so I did the best I could.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[UncleHermit]

Simple answer: No! One cannot find absolute morality if all morality is relitive, as humanists would have us believe. If we are simply animals, how can we expect to behave like anything but animals? Thus, anyone who believes in justifying morality must first justify we are not animals.

Are you claiming that we're not animals? What are we, plants?

Assume this example:
A boy kills a pregnant woman.

Why has the boy done wrong? Survival of the fittest says that the strong survive, thus promoting the boy for his strength and disregarding the woman and child for their weakness.

1. "Survival of the fittest" has to do with reproductive success. An organism with genes that allow it to survive long enough to reproduce will be more likely to pass on its genes. Do you disagree that this is the case?

2. Science describes what happens in reality, not what sort of moral decisions we should make based on said reality. You may as well be arguing that, since gravity causes objects with lesser mass to be attracted to objects of greater mass, the theory of gravity promotes people who push other people off of cliffs.

Unless we can prove that value is not relitive, the boy's killing cannot be condemned. Many animals will leave their weak to die, or kill them. How can we hope to have morals if there is no God to give them?

We are merely arguing that we ourselves are gods, despite lacking the power to uphold that claim. And if we are all gods, then who is there to tell us we are wrong?

If you can't figure out that killing someone is wrong without a god telling you so, I feel sorry for you.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Not exactly living up to your username with this post!

Why? I do not associate with murderers, pushers, frauds, or con artists in life. Why should I be expected to do so in death, when the only thing that connects us is that they simply accepted Jesus as their savior?

 

[razeontherock]

Why did your god regulate the terms of slavery (paying a fine), but not talk about how he detests it or abolishes it?

Serious question.

You have missed ALL the instances of Him saying that.

 

[razeontherock]

Why? I do not associate with murderers, pushers, frauds, or con artists in life. Why should I be expected to do so in death, when the only thing that connects us is that they simply accepted Jesus as their savior?

Obviously you do not know what it means to "accept Jesus as your Savior." (Not that I can fault you for that)

 

[razeontherock]

His question was nearly unintelligible, so I did the best I could.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Fair enough! Happens all the time, with these specific terms. In English, it's normal to read "tree of the knowledge of good and evil," and assume A & E didn't know the difference between the 2 since they had eaten of that tree, but that's not what the story is conveying.

We don't find that term clearly defined until the book of Proverbs, where it's spelled out that the Biblical term for the concept you're conveying is Wisdom. (Capitalized here because it is a personal attribute of G-d Himself)

Seeing the difference between right and wrong, and actually choosing the good, is understanding.

Knowledge is what comes as a result of "a good understanding." (Karma, Blessing of G-d, livin' right, whatever you want to call it)

 

[Non sequitur]

You have missed ALL the instances of Him saying that.

I never saw any posts in this thread where your god stated he detested or abolishes slavery, as he did divorce.

Can you link me to one?