Does morality exist without God?

[TomZzyzx]

"Moral relativism" signifies the belief that morals can be different in different times and depending on the culture.
Your claim that there was a different morality for the ancient Jews than for everybody else (and today) is a textbook example for the very moral relativism you keep arguing against.

Your misrepresenting my view. I didn't claim there was a different morality for the ancient Jews. Homosexuality was a sin in the Old Testament and homosexuality is a sin in the New Testament.

 

[ivebeenshown]

I answered your question. If you are talking about "the God of the Bible", then we have the same morals. Are you talking about "the God of the Bible"? If you are, don't we have the same morals?

Among Christians, different bible canons are held in faith, and different moral standards are held. For instance, you will find some churches which allow married homosexual priests, while others vehemently oppose ordaining either homosexuals or married persons to the priesthood.

 

[TomZzyzx]

So when you say "moral objectivist" you don´t mean "moral objectivist" but actually "a guy who believes he has figured it all out"?

Moral objectivist believe that moral rules are self evident, the same way that math and logic are self evident. We don't invent morality, we discover it like we discover math and logic.

 

[TomZzyzx]

Among Christians, different bible canons are held in faith, and different moral standards are held. For instance, you will find some churches which allow married homosexual priests, while others vehemently oppose ordaining either homosexuals or married persons to the priesthood.

There is only one biblical cannon that Christians hold. There might be different interpretations of that cannon, but that doesn't mean there are different cannons. So what if different moral standards are held, that doesn't mean they are both right. If the book of Romans says that homosexuality is an abomination then who do you think is right and who is wrong? This does not disprove objective right and wrong.

 

[Freodin]

No, it's objective. Homosexuality is a sin in the Old Testament and is a sin in the New Testament. The objective moral wrong, homosexuality, is still the same.

The "objective" moral in question here in not homosexuality. It is killing homosexuals.

The Bible says "do not kill". Many arguments have been made to align that to the many instances where the Bible commands people to kill. So that is a moral question.

Now it is an (objective) moral statement to say "do not kill". It can even be said to be still "objective" when you add a list of exceptions. But in this case, we are riding the slippery slope into the dreaded "moral subjectivism".

You said: "The new [sic] testament was written for the Jews. So unless your Jewish it doesn't apply to you."

If a Jew in Moses' times kills someone for homosexualit... would he be morally wrong? The law would apply for him.
If a Jew today killed someone for homosexuality... would he be morally wrong? What if I killed a homosexual Jew? What if a Jew killed a homosexual non-Jew?

Moral objectivist believe that moral rules are self evident, the same way that math and logic are self evident. We don't invent morality, we discover it like we discover math and logic.

So what is self evident? That Jews may kill homosexuals? Or that non-Jews must not?

 

[blarg the 2nd]

"it seems"? Your opinion? Where's your proof? Secular dictators have killed millions more than religious dictators

Except that societies have rules and ethics for a reason. Someone can act on their morality if they want, but they should expect consequences if they do so.

Thanks for making my point. Since these psychopaths don't know right from wrong, more people get murdered, raped, and all other evil done to them before get caught and go to jail. That a much better solution? It's better to teach our youth the difference between objective right and wrong.[/quote]

if yoyur kid is a psycho paht im not sure telling him things are bad is going to stop him

 

[blarg the 2nd]

Every secular dictator I was talking about was a moral relativist.

I wasn't talking about "every person who doesn't believe in an objective morality". I was talking about "someone acting on their morality" and expecting to pay the consequences.

I didn't say you were talking about children. My point was that parents and teachers who believe in a subjective relativistic morality teach kids that morality is what ever you believe it to be.

can i get alist of thease moral relativst dictators?

 

[TomZzyzx]

The "objective" moral in question here in not homosexuality. It is killing homosexuals.

The Bible says "do not kill". Many arguments have been made to align that to the many instances where the Bible commands people to kill. So that is a moral question.

Now it is an (objective) moral statement to say "do not kill". It can even be said to be still "objective" when you add a list of exceptions. But in this case, we are riding the slippery slope into the dreaded "moral subjectivism".

You said: "The new [sic] testament was written for the Jews. So unless your Jewish it doesn't apply to you."

If a Jew in Moses' times kills someone for homosexualit... would he be morally wrong? The law would apply for him.
If a Jew today killed someone for homosexuality... would he be morally wrong? What if I killed a homosexual Jew? What if a Jew killed a homosexual non-Jew?

So what is self evident? That Jews may kill homosexuals? Or that non-Jews must not?

In Exodus 20:13 the sixth commandment says "you shall not murder" not you shall not kill. The bible defines murder as "the unjustified taking of a human life" and killing as "the justified taking of a human life". God says that Moses is justified in killing homosexuals because it is an abomination.

 

[quatona]

I answered your question. If you are talking about "the God of the Bible", then we have the same morals. Are you talking about "the God of the Bible"?

If you go back to my post you can clearly see that I didn´t say "the God of the Bible".

 

[blarg the 2nd]

Please don't misrepresent what the bible says. You've done this before. It's better to list each verse separately. You incorrectly make the new testament say that homosexuality should be punished by death. The new testament never says that homosexuality should be punished by death.

thats some ones objectver morlaity for you for you gay should be put to death

 

[blarg the 2nd]

Every secular dictator I was talking about was a moral relativist.

I wasn't talking about "every person who doesn't believe in an objective morality". I was talking about "someone acting on their morality" and expecting to pay the consequences.

I didn't say you were talking about children. My point was that parents and teachers who believe in a subjective relativistic morality teach kids that morality is what ever you believe it to be.

but wiht objectve moralty parent and teacher teach kids to belive what ever they themsleves belve WHATEVER THAT MAY BE

unitll that dosent worck for some of them and they buld ther own new absolute morlity out of whatever they bleve wiht certanty WHATEVER THAT MAY BE

 

[quatona]

Moral objectivist believe that moral rules are self evident, the same way that math and logic are self evident. We don't invent morality, we discover it like we discover math and logic.

I´m not sure this is a correct summary of the definition, but at this point of the discussion it´s irrelevant because it is far from what you claimed was the topic of this thread.

However, the difference is that while "discovering" math and logic leads pretty much everyone to the same results "discovering morality" doesn´t. People don´t even agree what the best method of "discovering morality" is.
That´s because morals by definitions aren´t descriptive but prescriptive. They don´t tell us "what is" but what someone thinks "should be":

 

[blarg the 2nd]

Just for the record. The new testament was written for the Jews. So unless your Jewish it doesn't apply to you. And yes it does say that "homosexuality should be punished by death."

that seems evil to me im not going to folow any book that calls for the killing of homo sexuls


thouhg it hurts and scares me i understand that some peole will like that and that i dont have some cosmic force on the side of my own prefences

 

[blarg the 2nd]

This is exactly what I'm talking about. A moral relativist believes what he is doing is correct, no matter how wrong it is. This is why moral relativism is a dangerous idea to believe in.

Ok, let me ask you a question. Where do your morals come from?

an objectveist dose the same only in ther heads they can not be worng and evry one who disagres wiht them must be wrong

mine come form my self based on what i like and dont like it can be complicated some things are lkiekbale and unplesant in difrent ways some unplesant things can lead to plasant things some likable things lead to pain

 

[quatona]

Because those who reject an objective morality believe in a subjective moral relativism.

No, they believe that moral views are subjective, and the world as it is renders this an accurate description.
Moral relativism is something entirely different.

I can relate to your wish for a morality that everyone agrees upon (and even more so if it is the morality I subscribe to). Unfortunately, neither the declaration that my morals are objective nor even the fact that they are objective would change anything about this disagreement.

The argument "without a god-given moral code everything would be permissible" never ceases to amaze me when those who make this statement at the same time claim that there is a god-given moral code and that evil things happen. Their statement simply ignores that with a god given code (as they claim exists) everything is permissible (as they themselves observe).

 

[blarg the 2nd]

A person who "believes" it's ok to lie, steal and murder can not be called a moral objectivist. A moral objectivist believes that its wrong to lie, steal and murder. So no, a moral objectivist may not believe that it's ok to lie, steal and murder.

You can "desire" what ever you want but the murderer is going to have a different subjective moral code, and he doesn't care what "your" subjective moral code is.

no a moral objectivest like you says its worng to do those things and your lying by the way well maybe not but your mistaken

 

[blarg the 2nd]

God has given every human being a consciousness of right and wrong. Therefore, morality comes from God alone. But even an atheist can be moral, because God has still endowed him with a moral conscience.

Peace

"The heavens declare the glory of the Lord" (Psalms 19:2a)

only ther may be no god and humans seem to honestly belive difrent things are right and wrong

 

[quatona]

Your misrepresenting my view. I didn't claim there was a different morality for the ancient Jews.

Yes, you did.

Homosexuality was a sin in the Old Testament and homosexuality is a sin in the New Testament.

Except that was not the topic.
My post was in response to your statement:

The new testament was written for the Jews. So unless your Jewish it doesn't apply to you.

You clearly say that there are differences between the moral code for the Jewish and everybody else. That´s a textbook example of moral relativism.
(and the point of discussion was not homosexuality, but how to treat homosexuals).
Please pay attention - if not to what I write, at least to what you yourself write.

 

[blarg the 2nd]

In most cases, the murderer knows that what he does is wrong. If he did not know the difference between good and evil, he would be legally insane.

Peace

"The heavens declare the glory of the Lord" (Psalms 19:2a)

when killing isnt required by the laws you live under and you thinck its rightto kill so you wont call it murder

iv looked up at the night sky ther pretty light but notng to sugest some one put them ther on purpose

 

[blarg the 2nd]

Exactly my point again. If the parents have a subjective morality then they will teach their kids that everyone's morality is equal. No one is right and no one is wrong when it comes to morality. You decide for your self what is right and what is wrong. This understanding of subjective morality breeds some kids that lie, steal, and murder, with no regard for human life.

actuly for me my own verhsion while = to evry one elses in the grand schme of things is more important to me

you can still lie stel and kill with no regard for human life if you bleve absolutly that your doing so serves an inherently right purpose