Does morality exist without God?

[sandwiches]

Fallacy of the excluded middle.

Tell that to dcyates, not quatona.

It's as Dostoyevsky wrote: if there is no God, anything goes.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

Tell that to dcyates, not quatona.

Hopefully dcyates will see the post and make the connection.

 

[blarg the 2nd]

im not so sure Judaism or Christianity weer ever about treating women as = to men

genesis was quite clear early on that it was blaming women for all the worlds troubles and that women just existed to help man

I though feminism rely got going when the idea that men should be treated like other men got developed and people stated making the reasonable observation that this was leaving half the human race out of the picture

 

[blarg the 2nd]

religion Judaism and its child Christianity for example can contain things i consider good and they mutate and give rise to new and different ideas and there both probably ancestors to my way of thinking

but that dosent make a religion all good to me or all good of itself there dosent seem to be a right and wrong with out some one to judge it and pepole are not all entirely alike so we will make different judgments

 

[quatona]

Fallacy of the excluded middle.

And what would this excluded middle be; a demi-god?

 

[SonOfTheWest]

And what would this excluded middle be; a demi-god?

Check sandwiches post. It's in reference to something dcyates posted.

 

[quatona]

Check sandwiches post. It's in reference to something dcyates posted.

Ok. Thanks for clarifying.
However, I fail to see how the Dostojevski quote was a fallacy of the excluded middle (or were you referencing to something else)?
I see a couple of fallacies in it (e.g. an argument from consequence), but not a tertium non datur.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

Ok. Thanks for clarifying.
However, I fail to see how the Dostojevski quote was a fallacy of the excluded middle (or were you referencing to something else)?
I see a couple of fallacies in it (e.g. an argument from consequence), but not a tertium non datur.

It's in reference to dcyates position apparently that either you seem to have Judeo/Christian moral ethic or blargh! chaos! Mad Max land.

 

[quatona]

It's in reference to dcyates position apparently that either you seem to have Judeo/Christian moral ethic or blargh! chaos! Mad Max land.

I see.
Well, there are so many fallacies in it that I don´t even know where to start.

 

[dcyates]

This atheist faces the fact that even with a God there exists no objective basis for morality.

So then you agree with the ethic that 'might makes right'?

And since the world very much looks like "anything goes" can we conclude that there is no God?

That's specious reasoning, at best.
1st premise: govts legislate laws
2nd premise: citizens routinely break those laws
Therefore: govts don't exist?!?

 

[quatona]

So then you agree with the ethic that 'might makes right'?

Whenever someone responds with "So you agree...?" or "So you are saying...?" I can predict with great certainty that they are going to superimpose their own paradigms on my statement, and that the result has nothing to do with what I say or agree with.)
No, quite the opposite. What would make you think that?
There are some missing logical steps of which I am sure you have them ready in your head - steps that would make your conclusion follow from my statement and your paradigms - but I think you would have to spell them out. And even if you did, this would still be the result of your thoughts but not mine.

That's specious reasoning, at best.

1st premise: govts legislate laws
2nd premise: citizens routinely break those laws
Therefore: govts don't exist?!?

No, you´ve changed the goalposts.
Using the original version for your analogy:
1. premise: without govt. anything goes
2. premise: anything goes
conclusion: either there is no govt, or anything goes with or without govt. regardlessly.

What in this world do you think "would go" without a god that "doesn´t go" right now (with, as you believe, there being a god)? We observe murder, theft, rape, genocide...

Or are you alluding to the idea that all these things will be punished by a mighty and powerful god? And you are telling me I am an advocate of "might makes right"???

 

[blarg the 2nd]

So then you agree with the ethic that 'might makes right'?

That's specious reasoning, at best.
1st premise: govts legislate laws
2nd premise: citizens routinely break those laws
Therefore: govts don't exist?!?

no feeling makes right might just lets you get what you consider to be right a god may have the power to do wiht me and others as he wishes but would still be evil to me if i considered his actions evil

now might may be able to remove all feelings that your wrong form existence

but then god would still be pretending that its way of thinking is the only way that could ever exist

 

[dcyates]

As may be, however, since atheism has but a single defining characteristic your charge based on other characteristics seems rather odd.

It's odd that I express my opinion? (I did begin that sentence with "Personally, I'm fairly convinced that....")
Anyway, as Richard Weaver wrote, "Ideas have consequences," and a consequence of atheism is that it denies any objective moral standard. Do most atheists live consistent with that consequence? Considering the way they pass moral judgment on religion in general, Christianity in particular, and even God himself, no, they don't. They wish to deny the Judeo-Christian God, seemingly ignorant of the fact that without that God, the moral ethic by which they (try to) live and (delightfully) judge others wouldn't exist.

Yes, but you have one of two options as far as I can see with regards to God. The first being that God has decided morality, in which case it is just the ultimate expression of might makes right. The second being that there exists a morality that is external to God and he has simply passed it along to us.

I'm partial to the former option -- of which I don't have a problem with in the least. Yes, Almighty God, the Most High, the Creator of all that is, is the ultimate expression of might makes right.

Wow, really? All the best, freest, and healthiest places on earth are based on a christian heritage? Except for the ones that are not in any way connected with a christian heritage but we will make excuses for those.

Right. All the best, freest, wealthiest, and healthiest places in the world all share a significant Christian heritage. You think there are exceptions to that, name them. (I think it's odd that you didn't.)

Sorry but this just seems like a bunch of unsupported assertions to me. I think your conformation bias is showing.

Who said I was unbiased? Not me. Obviously I'm biased. So are you. So are all of us.
I offered "a bunch" of unsupported assertions? Fine. Which ones? Let's discuss.

 

[dcyates]

im not so sure Judaism or Christianity weer ever about treating women as = to men

I wouldn't make the claim that in either ancient Judaism, or early Christianity, did women enjoy full equality with men. But compared to their lot elsewhere in the world, they certainly enjoyed an elevated status closer to it. In the Greco-Roman world, women were largely confined to the home (and to the inner rooms of the home, if possible), and when they were allowed out in public, they were always escorted and could only speak to a male through another male with whom they were in some regard embedded (i.e. a father, husband, brother, son). Only harlots spoke to men without some sort of male intermediary.
It was with the advent of Christianity that females really began to grow in status. In fact, even as early as the writings of Paul (which constitute the earliest writings of the New Testament) do we find Christian women positively reveling in their newfound freedom. To the point where Paul felt compelled to reign them in, not because they weren't equal with men, but rather because, given the social conventions of the day, their freedom in Christ was regarded as too improper and thus too scandalous.

genesis was quite clear early on that it was blaming women for all the worlds troubles and that women just existed to help man

All due respect, blarg, but you're way off. Yes, Genesis indicates that it was specifically Eve who was deceived and enticed by the serpent to eat of the forbidden tree. But it's also careful to tell us that God had issued this proscription only to Adam BEFORE the creation of Eve; thus she got the instruction from Adam, but Adam had received it straight from the mouth of God. Additionally, although it's most often depicted as though Eve was off by herself when she was approached and deceived by the serpent, we're specifically told that, "(Eve) took from its fruit and ate and gave also to her husband beside her, and he ate" (Gen 3.6). In other words, Adam was there all along, passively silent! The result is reflected in the rest of the Bible where the blame for humanity's fall is always placed squarely on Adam's shoulders, not Eve's.
As well, in addition to my earlier comment re: Gen 1.27, nowhere else in ancient literature are women depicted as the heroes of the story as often as they are in the Bible. In the early chapters of Exodus, for example, over and over again it's the women who are cast as saviours, saving the lives of men.
Nowhere else in ancient literature do you find a figure like Deborah, a Judge of all Israel, where it's made very clear that Barak, although the commander of Israel's army, is nevertheless definitely under Deborah's authority (Judges 4-5). And even there, besides Deborah, the hero of the story, the one who ultimately defeats and kills the enemy commander is not Barak, but "Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite" (Judges 4.17-22).
Nowhere else in ancient literature do you find books dedicated to telling the stories of women, like the book of Ruth, or the book of Esther.
Nowhere else in ancient literature do you find a song of praise to a woman of virtuous accomplishment as is found in Proverbs 31.
And certainly nowhere else in ancient literature would you find a statement such as Paul's, where he declares that, in Christ, "there is neither Jew nor Gentile, there is neither slave nor freeman, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 4.28). Or where the apostle Paul bids, "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the Church and gave himself up for her.... Husbands ought also to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the Church" (Ephesians 5.25, 28-29). We have to remember, the Greeks of this time believed that true friendships could only be found between equals, and since women were not equal with men, men could never experience as close a relationship with a woman -- even a wife -- as they could with another man. To them, wives were for procreation, and little else.

I though feminism rely got going when the idea that men should be treated like other men got developed and people stated making the reasonable observation that this was leaving half the human race out of the picture

Why should it suddenly bother men that half the human race were being left out of this purported "equality picture"? It certainly hadn't bothered them before. And why was it only in the Christian West that women came to enjoy anywhere near the same status as men?
In point of fact, it was during the Middle Ages -- that so-called "Dark" period between the "glories" of imperial Rome and the Renaissance, with its return to Classical thinking -- that women came to be seen as persons of will, who were thus to be wooed with the formulation of courtly love rituals and poetry, rather than simply as objects which could be bargained for political or material gain.

 

[AGODBELIEVERlove1stfaith2]

to love

is to obey GOD

thats deep...


from a fruit in the garden of EDEN to the fruits of the SPIRIT to the fruits of the flesh

 

[Belk]

It's odd that I express my opinion? (I did begin that sentence with "Personally, I'm fairly convinced that....")

No, it's odd that you base your opinion of atheists on a characteristic that is not connected to atheism.

Anyway, as Richard Weaver wrote, "Ideas have consequences," and a consequence of atheism is that it denies any objective moral standard

It is simply a statement that the atheist does not believe gods exist. They are perfectly capable in believing in an objective moral standard. In point of fact, there is an atheist on this board who believes just that.

Do most atheists live consistent with that consequence? Considering the way they pass moral judgment on religion in general, Christianity in particular, and even God himself, no, they don't. They wish to deny the Judeo-Christian God, seemingly ignorant of the fact that without that God, the moral ethic by which they (try to) live and (delightfully) judge others wouldn't exist.

Please explain to me why you feel that because an atheist might not believe in moral objectivity they should not pass judgement on others. And yes, an atheist would not accept that any god providing anything. It is kind of part and parcel to not believing in any gods.

I'm partial to the former option -- of which I don't have a problem with in the least. Yes, Almighty God, the Most High, the Creator of all that is, is the ultimate expression of might makes right.

So might makes right is an adequate moral system in your opinion?

Right. All the best, freest, wealthiest, and healthiest places in the world all share a significant Christian heritage. You think there are exceptions to that, name them. (I think it's odd that you didn't.)

Since you named one in your post I didn't think it would really be necessary.

Who said I was unbiased? Not me. Obviously I'm biased. So are you. So are all of us.
I offered "a bunch" of unsupported assertions? Fine. Which ones? Let's discuss.

Not biased. Conformation bias. Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unless you have a system of metrics by which you have measured every country and compared it against it's religious heritage? If not then your opinion of which places in the world are the "best" is simply an assertion.


Belk

 

[fenix144]

Of course morality exists without a god.... Got to love peoples who think if religion suddenly disappeared, everyone would go on a nihilistic killing spree....

 

[SonOfTheWest]

Of course morality exists without a god.... Got to love peoples who think if religion suddenly disappeared, everyone would go on a nihilistic killing spree....

What scares me is the idea is pretty much indistinguishable from the ideas that lead to Manifest Destiny, British Imperialism,etc.

 

[fenix144]

Can you be more precise please?

I'll just come back on that tomorrow. for now my brain is melting X_X

 

[Eudaimonist]

I gave the reason for my assertion (re: Nietzsche being the only true atheist); that he faced the fact more than any other atheist I've either read or heard of that without God there exists no objective basis for morality.

So, no one can disagree with you about this and be a "true" atheist? There are atheists, such as myself, who would disagree with that claim on philosophical grounds.

I don't particularly like being told what I as an atheist am permitted to conclude ethically about an atheistic universe, hence the snark. I think that I was entitled just a smidgeon.

You are entitled to your views, but you aren't entitled to mine. Hands off!

It's as Dostoyevsky wrote: if there is no God, anything goes.

But this is not so. There is nothing about atheism that requires one to be an ethical nihilist. God isn't necessarily the only source of an "objective" ethical standard.

If somebody more powerful, or more cunning, or more quick than somebody else can thus manage to bash them over the head and rob them blind, who are you to say he shouldn't?

A rational being, and that's all I need to be to say so. This isn't a matter of "who" one is.

Sure, you might be able to get the proper authorities involved, but that's merely getting more powerful people to aid you. What if they don't want to? What if they decide to side with the attacker?

Whether they would or wouldn't side with the attacker has no bearing on whether or not the attacker was in the right. Right isn't determined by law or majority.

You can perhaps appeal to the very top authority: the president, the prime minister, the king, etc. But again, that's simply somebody more powerful yet.

Law isn't determined by authority either, even if that authority is a deity. Are you certain that you aren't the one advocating "might makes right", but considering God to have all of the "might"?

On the other hand, it's again not by accident that all the best, freest, wealthiest, and healthiest places to live on the planet are those with a significant Christian heritage.

You'll also note that those places that have a significant Christian heritage also have a significant Greek and Roman heritage. While Christianity does have its individualistic aspect, Greek democracy and Roman republicanism also had their individualistic aspect, and the Stoics preached human brotherhood. Christianity is not as unprecedented as you might think.

Most atheists want to remove religion from the public square

No, they don't. They want to prevent religion from hijacking the government and using it as a tool for converting others or forcing religious values on others.

I say, be careful what you wish for. Because if you get it, you'd better pray that either you're the most powerful guy around, or that the ethics of the guy who is just happens to closely mirror that of the Judeo-Christian ethic. (But then again, who would you be praying to?)

Oh, please. There are secular ethics in existence that aren't versions of "might makes right".


eudaimonia,

Mark