Does morality exist without God?

[razeontherock]

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

You might be good with some aspects of physical reality, but your statement here is full of holes.

1) If morality is universal, this speaks more to it coming from God than not.

2) You make no allowance for pockets of humanity that violate these morals. Cannibals, for instance. In one case I know of when they were first Evangelized, they presumed Judas to be the hero of the Gospel story!

3) Christianity teaches that saying I'm sorry for the same sin over and over again is ridiculous, and this is the opposite of repentance. (Which is necessary for forgiveness)

4) That "have Faith to your partner" thing. Yeah, that's sweet and all, but likewise pockets of humanity have violated that concept, openly in their societies.

5) Christianity shoulders nothing onto the Almighty. In fact, unbelievers here routinely try to do that, and need Christians to point out it is our own responsibility they are discussing.

6) Christianity does not "let you get away with stuff by passing it on to Jesus." Tons of Scripture to prove this if you want, but the most basic concept is "judgment according to works." (Words of Jesus, btw)

I did leave a statement or two of your's not overturned ...

 

[razeontherock]

I am absolutely certain that there is morality without God.

I would almost be inclined to agree with this, except doesn't your premise necessitate proving existence without God? (Once you understand the usage of terms, "existence w/o God" becomes a nonsensical statement)

 

[razeontherock]

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.

This really summarizes a LOT of discussions here. The atheist assumes God says these things are right and fine, while he doesn't. Likewise your statement of "acceptance of morality" is not at all what Christianity is about and yet, if it were known / proven that "a morality were objective and absolute," what good reason could there be for rejecting it?

 

[razeontherock]

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.

This is why the book of Judges is mandatory reading.

 

[razeontherock]

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?

Not at all! They are there specifically as a what's wrong with this?!?" To make us challenge ALL of our ideas on the subject, and (IMHO) to make us realize that we are NOT privy to any absolute, objective morality. The phrase "shaken to the core" comes into play here, methinks ...

 

[razeontherock]

Is the story of Adam and Eve moral?

The story tells us that our version of morality is irrelevant, much like the book of Judges does.

 

[SithDoughnut]

I would almost be inclined to agree with this, except doesn't your premise necessitate proving existence without God? (Once you understand the usage of terms, "existence w/o God" becomes a nonsensical statement)

Only if you've defined God in a nonsensical manner. If you define God as the origin of existence, then your statement is true, but the term "God" becomes meaningless and irrelevant.

 

[The Free Atheist]

If morality is universal, this speaks more to it coming from God than not.

Not true. First off you haven't even defined God in order to attribute anything to such a thing. You may as well replace God with He-Man since he is the Master of the Universe.

Morality isn't "universal" as in the same for everyone, even on issues where there is a big majority in agreement, such as the murder of children. Even though the vast majority of us accept that such a thing is wrong, there are still child killers out there indicating the morality on this issue is not universal.

The reason most people do agree on big issues like this is primarily because of our Evolution. We evolved to hold things such as murder, rape, and theft to be wrong because it served an evolutionary purpose, an evolutionary advantage to our survival.

If we evolved to favor discord, murder, destruction, etc in our morality, how would we ever have survived as a species? Much like the lone wolf dies on it's own whereas the pack together survives, our social ancestors had a distinct advantage over "soloists" because they worked together. Those of us who were naturally more favorable to working together had a better chance of surviving long enough to procreate. If everyone was a soloist, opportunist, murderer then who is to say we'd ever have survived our environment? Perhaps those that were naturally more discordant did live yet did not survive thus their lineage dying out.

We still see morality in nature with animals. The male lion who leads a pride of females gets to mate and the weaker males are banished. The females stick with the alpha male. Their loyalty is a form of morality. Wolves also have their own form of "rules" where the alpha's eat first. Primates have their own societal rules.

Morality is tied to evolution. If there was no morality then we likely never would have been able to work together to overcome our environmental challenges, such as the Ice Age. Teamwork and cooperation was a huge part of our ancestors being able to survive during difficult times. Of course they will develop "rules" against a deviant trying to disrupt the social order that serves to help everyone survive.

Christianity teaches that saying I'm sorry for the same sin over and over again is ridiculous, and this is the opposite of repentance. (Which is necessary for forgiveness)

Society soon learns that a dishonest apologist is not to be trusted. We don't need Christianity to teach us to learn to differentiate a meaningless apology from a true apology. We also recognize the benefit to everyone to be able to forgive. Forgiveness existed prior to Christianity.

 

[The Free Atheist]

Not at all! They are there specifically as a "[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]?!?" To make us challenge ALL of our ideas on the subject, and (IMHO) to make us realize that we are NOT privy to any absolute, objective morality. The phrase "shaken to the core" comes into play here, methinks ...

My signiture explains your answer.

 

[razeontherock]

If you define God as the origin of existence, then your statement is true, but the term "God" becomes meaningless and irrelevant.

I'll be sure to let the origin of existence know you say He's meaningless and irrelevant. I'm sure He'll change everything because of it

 

[razeontherock]

Not true. First off you haven't even defined God in order to attribute anything to such a thing.

Wait now, you don't know Him so it's upon me to somehow "define" Him? No, reality does not work that way.

 

[razeontherock]

My signiture explains your answer.

No, not even close. Maybe someday you will understand ...

 

[chris4243]

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.

You said that you can prove to someone that murder is wrong, by proving the existence of God, then proving that God sent His son to earth to pay for our sins by sacrificing his life so that we may have eternal life.

Dunno how that would work, but the first step in your proof is to prove God exists. If you can't do that, you can't prove the rest of your stuff.

 

[mzungu]

Not at all! They are there specifically as a what's wrong with this?!?" To make us challenge ALL of our ideas on the subject, and (IMHO) to make us realize that we are NOT privy to any absolute, objective morality. The phrase "shaken to the core" comes into play here, methinks ...

Jesus did warn us about misinterpreting the scriptures. A straight answer to my question will be appreciated especially when Jesus told us to adhere to the scriptures (in this case the OT since there was no NT at the time) and not change an"iota".
Now since the scriptures demand we put to death disobedient children and witches and adulteresses etc. then it will be immoral at the least to stray from those commandments!

Either you accept God's morality or you do not. Discarding the laws in the Bible as laid out by God is in itself punishable by death.

Your call!

 

[razeontherock]

Either you accept God's morality or you do not. Discarding the laws in the Bible as laid out by God is in itself punishable by death.

You do greatly err, because you know neither the Scriptures, nor the Power of God. Go and learn what it means He will "have mercy, and not sacrifice."

 

[mzungu]

You do greatly err, because you know neither the Scriptures, nor the Power of God. Go and learn what it means He will "have mercy, and not sacrifice."

I have yet to receive a direct answer from you! You can avoid all you like and all it proves is that you are avoiding the topic altogether.

Now either give me a direct answer to my question or just have the sincerity to admit that you simply cannot answer because this will cause a conflict in your beliefs.

 

[razeontherock]

I have yet to receive a direct answer from you! You can avoid all you like and all it proves is that you are avoiding the topic altogether.

Now either give me a direct answer to my question or just have the sincerity to admit that you simply cannot answer because this will cause a conflict in your beliefs.

Neither. You are in WAY over your head.

 

[drstevej]

Not true. First off you haven't even defined God in order to attribute anything to such a thing. You may as well replace God with He-Man since he is the Master of the Universe.

 

[SithDoughnut]

There's a Christianity version of this picture which the mods get uppity about so I won't post it (it's a lot easier to deal out insults - or watch them being dealt out - than receive them, I suppose), but needless to say it is as close to the reality of Christianity as this is to atheism. Which is to say, not remotely. If memory serves it talks about magical men and zombies.

 

[SithDoughnut]

I'll be sure to let the origin of existence know you say He's meaningless and irrelevant. I'm sure He'll change everything because of it

Except that God is not defined as the origin of existence. He's defined as that and more. This means that there are alternative ideas that also include the property of being the origin of existence, but are not God.

In short, if you want to make existence proof of God, then you have to define God as nothing but the origin of existence. Otherwise you have no argument.

You used to be a lot more laid back and polite, you know. It was more fun talking to you back then.