Does morality exist without God?

[SonOfTheWest]

well splitting hairs i think every one has a purely internal moral code just that they tend to be shaped be whats perceived be external

but evne the effect extenrel inlfunces is shaped by how you are

Oh no, you misunderstand. What I'm meaning is that while people do function with an internal moral code..it's not exclusively internal. Our worldviews are shaped by our experiences of the world around us. Ergo..Tom's commentary on internal morals of people is HIGHLY simplistic and inaccurate.

 

[Texan40]

1. Because some self-professing Christians would be very disappointed (to say it mildly) if I - the non-believer - would exclude them from Christianity.
2. Because that´s not the definition all self-professing Christians work from, in the first place.
3. Because among self-professing Christians there are disagreements what it actually means to "follow Christ´s example".

I understand that the reality of it excludes many people who do not wish to be excluded (myself included more often than not) but thankfully (for God's grace) it is not a hopeless situation.

 

[quatona]

I understand that the reality of it excludes many people who do not wish to be excluded (myself included more often than not) but thankfully (for God's grace) it is not a hopeless situation.

What I am trying to say: Do you really want me of all (or any other non-believer, for that matter) to be the judge who is a Christian or not?

 

[blarg the 2nd]

The absence of random chance means that everything going back to the absolute beginning has a design. It is a massive sequence of action and consequence which has a definite conclusion.

well no may not be a design things just are as they are still not sure the concushion actuly matters at all if im being impartial about things

 

[Freodin]

The Christian hydra raising her head again. Debate one Christian, argue against his arguments, and see a second Christian come in who disagrees with the first and denies that he is a "true Christian".

Usually it is not funny any more after the second time this happens... but in a thread about absolute morality, it is hilarious!

"Oh yes, morals are absolute.... and I have them!"

 

[Texan40]

What I am trying to say: Do you really want me of all (or any other non-believer, for that matter) to be the judge who is a Christian or not?

People are judged all the time! It's in our nature to do so and a VERY hard habit to break. I could care less about the appearance of what passes for modern Christianity as a whole. I care much more about the people who continue where Christ left off and attempt to share God's love and the good news of the gospel with the world. Appearances are merely a vehicle for vanities.

 

[blarg the 2nd]

I absolutely agree. This is why "random" has to suffice for so much. It's virtually impossible for us to figure out which actions contributed to certain consequences. This doesn't mean that they aren't there just that we are unable to know them.

could be reality is bigger then we know about and everything that possibly could happen did

would remove chance at least though unraveling cause effect relation ships could still be hard

assuming time as we perceive it is reel and not us just tracing out the shape of existence( or a part of it ) itself

 

[blarg the 2nd]

Oh no, you misunderstand. What I'm meaning is that while people do function with an internal moral code..it's not exclusively internal. Our worldviews are shaped by our experiences of the world around us. Ergo..Tom's commentary on internal morals of people is HIGHLY simplistic and inaccurate.

o my mistake

 

[Texan40]

The Christian hydra raising her head again. Debate one Christian, argue against his arguments, and see a second Christian come in who disagrees with the first and denies that he is a "true Christian".

Usually it is not funny any more after the second time this happens... but in a thread about absolute morality, it is hilarious!

"Oh yes, morals are absolute.... and I have them!"

If that is how you interpreted my posts then my apologies. I am certainly no beacon of moral perfection and re-reading my posts I don't actually see where I said that... go figure. But if it makes you feel more "right" I'll just sit in my pigeon hole quietly. I thought this was a philosophical discussion on morality not a morality "pageant."

 

[Freodin]

If that is how you interpreted my posts then my apologies. I am certainly no beacon of moral perfection and re-reading my posts I don't actually see where I said that... go figure. But if it makes you feel more "right" I'll just sit in my pigeon hole quietly. I thought this was a philosophical discussion on morality not a morality "pageant."

No offense meant... but you have to admit that it gets quite difficult to argue anything about Christianity when Christians themselves cannot agree on just who is a Christian.

And this is indeed a problem with personal claims, at least indirect ones.

You wanted to define Christians in a certain way, in order to counter my argument. That implies that the people I mentioned do not "follow Jesus example". Than again implies that you, who act differently, do that.

And here again we come back to the problem of different, even contradicting Christian "absolute morals". You think killing is never morally justified. You would feel awful. You follow Jesus' example, so Jesus must feel the same. Those who don't feel like you do... do they follow Jesus' example?

What about those who followed the Mosaic laws. Didn't eat shellfish, because it was an "abomination". Abstained from blood, because it was an "abomination". Killed homosexuals, because... you get the idea?

What about those who killed the Jews, because they sincerely believed they were subhuman?
What about those who killed the Amalekites, because God himself commanded them to do?


Personally, I like your set of morals a lot more than that of a lot of other Christians I have met. But they are still subjective. They can and are still based on human reasoning, human empathy and human compassion... not divine decree.

 

[Texan40]

No offense meant... but you have to admit that it gets quite difficult to argue anything about Christianity when Christians themselves cannot agree on just who is a Christian.

And this is indeed a problem with personal claims, at least indirect ones.

You wanted to define Christians in a certain way, in order to counter my argument. That implies that the people I mentioned do not "follow Jesus example". Than again implies that you, who act differently, do that.

And here again we come back to the problem of different, even contradicting Christian "absolute morals". You think killing is never morally justified. You would feel awful. You follow Jesus' example, so Jesus must feel the same. Those who don't feel like you do... do they follow Jesus' example?

What about those who followed the Mosaic laws. Didn't eat shellfish, because it was an "abomination". Abstained from blood, because it was an "abomination". Killed homosexuals, because... you get the idea?

What about those who killed the Jews, because they sincerely believed they were subhuman?
What about those who killed the Amalekites, because God himself commanded them to do?


Personally, I like your set of morals a lot more than that of a lot of other Christians I have met. But they are still subjective. They can and are still based on human reasoning, human empathy and human compassion... not divine decree.

I can't disagree that my morals are subjective. I am a human being and as such it is mind-bogglingly difficult to maintain an application of absolute morals. I'd almost have to lock myself in a closet and "win by default." I have hope that the Spirit can help me in this arena and that I can day by day be more like the Savior I love and less like the broken individual that I know I am.

 

[Freodin]

I can't disagree that my morals are subjective. I am a human being and as such it is mind-bogglingly difficult to maintain an application of absolute morals. I'd almost have to lock myself in a closet and "win by default." I have hope that the Spirit can help me in this arena and that I can day by day be more like the Savior I love and less like the broken individual that I know I am.

It seems we agree.... less the saviour.

So where do you think your subjective morals come from?

 

[Texan40]

It seems we agree.... less the saviour.
So where do you think your subjective morals come from?

My parents tried their hardest to pass on their moral system to me (and in come cases did) but in the end much of my moral compass was hewn from trial and error. There are of course some basics such as the Golden Rule which I have always found elementary. I was away from both the church and even contemplating God for most of my life but have returned in the last 2 years. My perspective is not always in line with Christians who have remained active their entire lives.

 

[quatona]

People are judged all the time! It's in our nature to do so and a VERY hard habit to break.

That may or may not be so. However, I don´t understand why you encouraged us to judge who´s a Christian or not.
I don´t think that´s my job.

I could care less about the appearance of what passes for modern Christianity as a whole. I care much more about the people who continue where Christ left off and attempt to share God's love and the good news of the gospel with the world. Appearances are merely a vehicle for vanities.

That´s all fine and dandy but why should I as a non-believer take sides in you guys´ inner-Christian disagreements?

 

[blarg the 2nd]

hey if that Jesus fellow ever came back could he judge who the Christians weer?

 

[ivebeenshown]

hey if that Jesus fellow ever came back could he judge who the Christians weer?

Catholics believe that everyone will be judged according to their works.

Romans 2
6 God “will repay each person according to what they have done.” 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger.

That´s all fine and dandy but why should I as a non-believer take sides in you guys´ inner-Christian disagreements?

You don't have to.

 

[Verv]

But so what? I do believe that morals are basically instinctive, though we are not totally controlled by them. We are animals, but unique ones. The neuronal architecture of our brains gives us a singular capacity to learn, think, and put our thoughts into action. Which, as far as we know, is greater than that of any other extant animal species. Our reasoning ability allows us to consciously override our instinctive drives. So we have a much greater range of behavioral choices than all other animals. But even if our behaviors were largely reflexive, without much cogitation, that wouldn't be a "bad' thing. It would be how we evolved. It would just be our nature. Concepts of good and bad don't really apply to natural phenomena.

So what is a murderer? Good or bad, or neutral & natural?

The Jews decided it was too risky to live with the Moabites so they had a genocide that destroyed them all; was it their call, or was that wrong?

Is it better to say that the Holocaust was 'illogical' as opposed to 'immoral?'

That would mean that creating humans - moral beings, who are supposed to "do right" - in a way so that they don't do right.... is wrong.

But are humans more wrong than right?

God has given a choice to make and many of us choose to do right...

The burden on you would be to prove that humanity is across the board more immoral than moral.

God did not create perfect beings -- he created ones that are flawed...

But remember: Alexander Rodriguez hits the ball only 30.2% of the time that he goes to the plate, yet he is the very best at the sport.

Peyton Manning completes his passes 64.9% of the game...

Neither of these are perfect numbers but it is hard to argue that they are not very worthwhile athletes.

We don't all have to be Mother Theresa for us to be an overall 'moral' group.

i dont know if there is a god its also easy to say ther is one to say that someng is always right or worng for every one because moral cetanty comforts you

Blarg, you came here and accused my philosophy of being rooted entirely on what is most comfortable.

I pointed out that I do not have the luxury of not having a God that I am accountable to, implying the sword cuts both ways...

You have repeated yourself as opposed to confronting my argument.

 

[TomZzyzx]

Why is that a problem precisely?

The problem with moral relativism is that it Holds that moral truths are preferences much like our taste in ice cream. Everyone's morality is equal, no one has a claim on morality that is incumbent on others. There is no difference between a moral relativist and someone who has no morality at all. The kind of moral champion relativism produces is someone that has no regard for human life, does not know the difference between right and wrong, instead consistently follows the beat of their own moral drum, with no conscience. That's why Moral Relativism does not qualify as an ethical system.

 

[blarg the 2nd]

Oh, so you believe morality is rooted in some form of evolutionary darwinism?

Congratulations -- you have begun answering a fundamental question of morality.

Hats off to you, though I disagree.

In this scenario, though, there are many things that are trendy to condemn, e.g. slavery, massacres, etc. that in many contexts cannot properly be condemned. But if you stand by it... So be it.

There is nothing evil in nature?

OK -- so a serial killer with something wrong in his brain is not a fundamentally evil creature?



No, that is not right.

The value of human existence is not entirely derived from doing right/doing wrong, but the entirety of the learning experience and the life process, and furthermore, humans do far more right than wrong.

The majority of humans act in a generally moral way the overwhelming majority of the time.



It does?

I get comfort from all sorts of things but my beliefs are not one of them.

It'd be quite pleasant to believe in no standards and not be held accountable for your actions.

um i looked back to when you 1st posted this i dont see myslef reapeating myslef diid i not look back far enuth ( quite posible) or did you go back to far?

and your worng im held acountbale to any one wiht the power and desire to judge me its jsut the perosn wiht the most power is not automatickly good in some unversal sense

 

[blarg the 2nd]

how do you know ther is a god verv? and that it has moral authority over other pepole?

and do you relay mean you would prefer to not have faiht in objectve morlaity espeshily when its backed up by a god .

you would rather have subjectve morlality enforcedd by who ever has the power to enfore ther own vershion of it if any one at all?