Does morality exist without God?

[someguy14]

So how can you claim that God was there from the beginning, created everything and made a universal law of morals when we know that your idea of God doesn't even predate Ancient Egypt?

Doesn't predate Ancient Egypt? Have you read Exodus? How Pharoahs heart was hardened and Pharoah was plagued? Showing that Ancient Egyptian Pharoah was not even close to understanding the beginning. But instead, worshipped false gods, gods of confused mankinds imagination.

If you were getting bullied and one stepped in and said stop it or I will destroy you, to those bulling you, would you not recognize that?

 

[someguy14]

Yeah, pretty much.

How come you believe that though? Cause society says so? Where does society get off treating different forms of life differently from others? Isn't all life, life?

 

[Dave Ellis]

I have no interest in understanding atheists. They are a law unto themselves and my love for them is unwavering regardless.

I appreciate your love for all people regardless of belief, that's a very enlightened view to take and shows you are a moral person.

That being said, this thread is dealing with the possibility of morality existing without God.

Nobody has been able to demonstrate why God is necessary for morality to exist. Since God can not be shown to be necessary for morality, the only rational conclusion is that he is not needed for morality to exist. Morality would exist with or without God.

 

[someguy14]

That being said, this thread is dealing with the possibility of morality existing without God.

Nobody has been able to demonstrate why God is necessary for morality to exist. Since God can not be shown to be necessary for morality, the only rational conclusion is that he is not needed for morality to exist. Morality would exist with or without God.

Of course it has been shown, everyday. Without God, none exists. Therefore, morality doesn't exist without God. Those that serve the wicked only give so that they may recieve as much or more. Love gives and expects nothing in return.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Of course it has been shown, everyday. Without God, none exists. Therefore, morality doesn't exist without God. The wicked only give so that they may recieve as much or more. Gods own give and expect none in return.

That's some pretty great reasoning there. You're acting on an unproven presupposition that God exists, then use that presupposition as proof for your point.

The last section of your post is just plain bigotry. There's plenty of very charitable Atheists (And non-Christians in general), where there's plenty of greedy and unpleasant Christians.

That of course doesn't speak for all of any group. In any segment of society you'll find good and bad people, regardless of religious belief.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Doesn't predate Ancient Egypt? Have you read Exodus? How Pharoahs heart was hardened and Pharoah was plagued? Showing that Ancient Egyptian Pharoah was not even close to understanding the beginning. But instead, worshipped false gods, gods of confused mankinds imagination.

If you were getting bullied and one stepped in and said stop it or I will destroy you, to those bulling you, would you not recognize that?

Have you read a history book?

Exodus was written approximately 500-600BC. I should note that nothing in the book of exodus has been historically proven, and in fact there's no evidence of a jewish exodus from Egypt ever occurring. It is regarded by biblical scholars to be originally based more on the Babylonian Exile than anything else.

However, For the sake of argument I'll grant you the book has some historical accuracy.

The Pharoah you are referring to would have reined somewhere in the era of 500-600BC. By that time the Egyptian Civilization was already 2,500-3,000 years old. The Great Pyramid at Giza was already over 2,000 years old by that point.

I'm not arguing the rise of Judaism occurred during the time of the Egyptian Civilization, however it happened thousands of years after it's founding.

Yahweh, The God of Judaism, which later became the God of Christianity and Islam was not known to the early and middle-era Egyptians, along with every other civilization on the face of the planet. He first appears within the mythology of the earliest Jewish Tribes roughly around 1,000BC. Prior to that point, he simply did not exist in human civilization.

 

[Dave Ellis]

How come you believe that though? Cause society says so? Where does society get off treating different forms of life differently from others? Isn't all life, life?

No, because I enjoy surviving... and to survive, I must eat. Society is not in error in treating different forms of life differently.... because different forms of life, are different!

Do you feel guilt when you use hand sanitizer and kill bacteria on your hand? Or swat a fly? If you don't, you also value different forms of life differently and you're being hypocritical by making your argument.

All life is life... some forms of life taste better with ketchup.

 

[TomZzyzx]

My morality comes from the knowledge of how my actions affect others (i.e. Human Empathy). I know if I kill someone, their family and friends will feel great hurt... I can estimate how that hurt would feel as I've lost loved ones before, and knowing I would have caused that hurt makes me feel terrible, and guilty. So I am naturally averse to the idea of killing someone!

It is simply the wrong thing to do.

If someone never lost any loved ones and had no empathy and their morality said it is ok to kill someone, would you object or would you respect their view?

 

[Dave Ellis]

If someone never lost any loved ones and had no empathy and their morality said it is ok to kill someone, would you object or would you respect their view?

No


This point has been addressed in this thread already. Just because someone thinks something is moral, does not mean I have to accept or respect their position.

I think killing is immoral in most cases, therefore someone who kills without good reason in my opinion is acting immorally. What their personal views are is irrelevant.

 

[TomZzyzx]

No

This point has been addressed in this thread already. Just because someone thinks something is moral, does not mean I have to accept or respect their position.

I think killing is immoral in most cases, therefore someone who kills without good reason in my opinion is acting immorally. What their personal views are is irrelevant.

Is it objectively wrong or just personal preference?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Is it objectively wrong or just personal preference?

Personal opinion.

The vast majority of society also shares that opinion.

 

[TomZzyzx]

Personal opinion.

The vast majority of society also shares that opinion.

So since morality is just personal opinion, and some gang's personal opinion/morality is that it's ok to take families hostage and torture all the men and rape all the women then you couldn't object to that. Right?

 

[Dave Ellis]

So since morality is just personal opinion, and some gang's personal opinion/morality is that it's ok to take families hostage and torture all the men and rape all the women then you couldn't object to that. Right?

I have answered that question multiple times in numerous scenarios that you have put forward. I have every right to object to the people in that scenario.

What is it that is causing you to have so many problems comprehending this?

 

[TomZzyzx]

I have answered that question multiple times in numerous scenarios that you have put forward. I have every right to object to the people in that scenario.

What is it that is causing you to have so many problems comprehending this?

You have every right? Says who? I thought you said that morality was just a personal opinion. What right do you have to force your view on them?

 

[WilliamB]

I appreciate your love for all people regardless of belief, that's a very enlightened view to take and shows you are a moral person.

That being said, this thread is dealing with the possibility of morality existing without God.

Nobody has been able to demonstrate why God is necessary for morality to exist. Since God can not be shown to be necessary for morality, the only rational conclusion is that he is not needed for morality to exist. Morality would exist with or without God.

Then it's a never ending thread. You can't make someone believe what they refuse to believe. There is never enough proof to convince someone who doesn't want to be convinced. If a person will base thier understanding on a theory that's significantly younger than the oldest biblical texts, they deny the very logic they stand on to make that claim.

I like science, archeology and history. I think it's fascinating. But I also know that it is limited and to form conclusions requires more faith than actually believing in God. The bible is very clear that moral laws were written on our hearts. In more than one passage. If you reject the bible, or even worse, haven't even read it, then one can make any claim they like.

My only question is from a scientific stand point, have you even read the bible? Regardless whether you believe in God it is still a piece of evidence in the mystery. If I were to blindly reject evolution without actually reviewing the evidence, can I honestly form a rational opinion or is it merely based on blind allegiance to my beleifs? Is one actually searching for truth or just looking to be right?

 

[Dave Ellis]

You have every right? Says who? I thought you said that morality was just a personal opinion. What right do you have to force your view on them?

Ok... this is the last time I am going to answer this question. Any time in the future you bring up this exact same scenario, I will refer you back to this post. So please take note:

I do not have to accept, or respect someone elses opinion on what constitutes moral behaviour. If they are doing something I consider to be immoral, then I have every right to complain about it.

 

[TomZzyzx]

Ok... this is the last time I am going to answer this question. Any time in the future you bring up this exact same scenario, I will refer you back to this post. So please take note:

I do not have to accept, or respect someone elses opinion on what constitutes moral behaviour. If they are doing something I consider to be immoral, then I have every right to complain about it.

In order for you to say it is wrong for a gang to torture men and rape women, you must assume that torture and rape are objective and not a personal preferences. However, in order for torture and rape to exist objectively, morals must also exist as real, objective things. Otherwise, torture and rape are not truly wrong; it's just a personal preference like choosing one's favorite flavor of ice cream.

 

[Common Sense]

My morality began with the teachings of my parents, as they were taught by their parents, when I began attending Church The things I had been taught were confirmed. I believe the teachings came fron God but I don't believe you have to get it from the Bible , not if you had parents with good morals. There isone most important thing you can get from no other book and that's the perfect plan of Salvation. You are right however that other books will contain tachings on morals that provide a man with the knowlege to perserve his self dignity, obtain the respect of others and be known by all as a man who will not back down from his beliefs to please anyone. His handshake is more important that a writen agreement. Might not all this have originated from Godly men before pen was ever put to paper?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

In order for you to say it is wrong for a gang to torture men and rape women, you must assume that torture and rape are objective and not a personal preferences.

False. If a subjectivist says that torture and rape are wrong, they're saying they're wrong to them. Nothing objective is implied.

However, in order for torture and rape to exist objectively, morals must also exist as real, objective things. Otherwise, torture and rape are not truly wrong; it's just a personal preference like choosing one's favorite flavor of ice cream.

Yes. And?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Then it's a never ending thread. You can't make someone believe what they refuse to believe. There is never enough proof to convince someone who doesn't want to be convinced. If a person will base thier understanding on a theory that's significantly younger than the oldest biblical texts, they deny the very logic they stand on to make that claim.

I like science, archeology and history. I think it's fascinating. But I also know that it is limited and to form conclusions requires more faith than actually believing in God. The bible is very clear that moral laws were written on our hearts. In more than one passage. If you reject the bible, or even worse, haven't even read it, then one can make any claim they like.

My only question is from a scientific stand point, have you even read the bible? Regardless whether you believe in God it is still a piece of evidence in the mystery. If I were to blindly reject evolution without actually reviewing the evidence, can I honestly form a rational opinion or is it merely based on blind allegiance to my beleifs? Is one actually searching for truth or just looking to be right?

And it's not a matter of refusing to believe anything. I don't refuse to believe in Christianity or any other religion, it's just that no religion I've come across yet has convincing evidence to show their claims are true.

Your point about me basing my beliefs on a theory that's younger than the bible being illogical is nonsensical. There is verifiable evidence to demonstrate the Big Bang happened. Just because we didn't discover it until technology allowed us to doesn't mean it's not valid. The Evidence is there, where it is not for Christianity.

So what are the limits than science, and why do you assume forming conclusions takes faith? If faith is involved to form your conclusion, it's not science.

I don't accept your claim that moral code was written on our hearts by anything. If you can provide compelling evidence for your claim though, I am willing to consider your position.


And actually yes, I have read the bible cover to cover. I've also read a number of "Why you should be a Christian" books (The last one I read was "The Reason for God by Timothy Keller). Plus went to church regularly when I was younger (I was a Presbyterian). I have a fairly thorough understanding of Christianity, and have researched into other religions as well (although not nearly as much at I have the Christian Religion).

I am concerned about finding out what is true. I have no desire to continue to hold a belief if I am shown I am wrong. However, in order to be shown I am wrong, it requires compelling evidence. No religion to date has been able to provide that.