Does morality exist without God?

[Belk]

Huh?

You asked when simply wanting more of something granted it to you. The obvious answer to me is when what you want more of exists in your imagination you can instantly grant it to yourself.

 

[sandwiches]

So, you agree then that it cannot be accurately claimed that the Bible is factually incorrect?

Only if you agree that the Kuran cannot be accurately claimed is factually incorrect or that the Kalevala cannot be accurately claimed is factually incorrect.

So, I agree that ANYTHING on ANY BOOK can be interpreted or explained in such a way that it seems to match reality.

 

[roach]

contd

Does morality exist without God? Why would it?
OR/
Why would it not?

__________________

Yes. because we thought of it. Just like math....

 

[allhart]

The tragedy of disbelieving in God is not a person believing in anything, but it is much worse than that. It is they can believe in anything.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The tragedy of disbelieving in God is not a person believing in anything, but it is much worse than that. It is they can believe in anything.

When you can pick and choose among religions, even among strictly monotheistic religions, and even among sects and doctrines within religions, how is that any different?

Nothing about disbelieving in a God means that one will be irrational and believe in "anything". Rationality implies selectivity. It implies that one will reject the contradictory, and demand evidence for assertions to be taken seriously. The rational disbeliever won't believe in just "anything".


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[allhart]

When you can pick and choose among religions, even among strictly monotheistic religions, and even among sects and doctrines within religions, how is that any different?

Nothing about disbelieving in a God means that one will be irrational and believe in "anything". Rationality implies selectivity. It implies that one will reject the contradictory, and demand evidence for assertions to be taken seriously. The rational disbeliever won't believe in just "anything".

eudaimonia,

Mark

Where is your point of reference to morals and values because no one comes together in on unified thinking or common ground. Especially when nothing is sacred anymore. Atheists don't unilateral think in unison or sequence.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Where is your point of reference to morals and values because no one comes together in on unified thinking or common ground. Especially when nothing is sacred anymore. Atheists don't unilateral think in unison or sequence.

Being human is common ground.

 

[allhart]

Being human is common ground.

Really and that is all we need to navigate through our lives in society.... Not! There is no census on anything even sexuality by all human reelections. There is more to reasoning and rational..... There's commonsense.

 

[Tinker Grey]

What fascinates me is that some (most?) theists assert that God is necessary for morality. If it didn't exist, we wouldn't be moral.

Yet if one says that being human is enough common ground, the theist asserts that it doesn't work and points out a certain lack of consensus.

This seems to me a de facto admission that God being there isn't helping.

 

[allhart]

What fascinates me is that some (most?) theists assert that God is necessary for morality. If it didn't exist, we wouldn't be moral.

Yet if one says that being human is enough common ground, the theist asserts that it doesn't work and points out a certain lack of consensus.

This seems to me a de facto admission that God being there isn't helping.

It is written on our conscience and hearts, however; many rationalize it away, therefore; by hardening their hearts. We are depraved and rotten to the core. Evil is a form of insanity and there are degrees of insanity, furthermore no one wants to see themselves as evil. God is like the north star in the sea of depravity.

 

[allhart]

What fascinates me is that some (most?) theists assert that God is necessary for morality. If it didn't exist, we wouldn't be moral.

Yet if one says that being human is enough common ground, the theist asserts that it doesn't work and points out a certain lack of consensus.

This seems to me a de facto admission that God being there isn't helping.

What gives atheists a consensus or common ground when people or cultures don't think alike relative their own personal moralities/ realities? For some secularists there is nothing sacred and I mean nothing!

Example: making the actually perpetrator the victim when personal consequence lead to action.

 

[quatona]

We are depraved and rotten to the core.

Ok, but we are not.

 

[quatona]

What gives atheists a consensus or common ground when people or cultures don't think alike relative their own personal moralities/ realities?

The same questions can be asked about theists - with the same answer.

 

[allhart]

The same questions can be asked about theists - with the same answer.

In God unity doesn't necessarily mean uniformity, however; God... The Bible is our common ground. There is concrete doctrine that unifies us.

 

[allhart]

the horror of people believing in god is hat they can also believe anything believe anything applys to every one else no matter what and that they know their right based on faith

Intent is prior to content and people can rationalize things away. I am
perfectly fine with you living a meaningless life.... Relative to your own thoughts and thoughts only. It has no effect on me one way or the other. If i was to convince you of God someone else will talk u out of it. I put up some points and rational out there, but if you don't believe sorry that's on you. Kinda like trying to convince you to stop beating that old dead horse. When your thinking it still alive when it is already dead. I live the eternal perspective and some live for the carnal. It's like living in the light of day or night and others live in the night of day...... Oil and water don't mix.

 

[quatona]

In God unity doesn't necessarily mean uniformity, however; God... The Bible is our common ground. There is concrete doctrine that unifies us.

No, the bible - while being considered common ground among Christians - is not the common ground of theists.

 

[allhart]

No, the bible - while being considered common ground among Christians - is not the common ground of theists.

Yes certain aspects of it bring us together or we aren't considered Christian.

 

[quatona]

Yes certain aspects of it bring us together or we aren't considered Christian.

You keep missing the point:
I am - correctly - contrasting "atheists" with "theists", not with "Christians".

 

[Eudaimonist]

Where is your point of reference to morals and values because no one comes together in on unified thinking or common ground.

What is my point of reference? The nature of human existence. I don't claim to understand human nature perfectly, but that is the real world "anchor" that guides my investigation into morals and values and that allows me to sift reality from unreality. If other people have their own insights into this, and I'm sure that they do, then good! I benefit from other people's vantagepoints, whether because I accept that their insight is accurate and useful, or because I learn it to be false and misleading.

Especially when nothing is sacred anymore.

I must have missed that memo. There is plenty that is deeply sacred to me.

Atheists don't unilateral think in unison or sequence.

Neither do Christians. Neither does anybody. So what? We don't have to in order to gain wisdom over time.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[roach]

Intent is prior to content and people can rationalize things away. I am
perfectly fine with you living a meaningless life.... Relative to your own thoughts and thoughts only. It has no effect on me one way or the other. If i was to convince you of God someone else will talk u out of it. I put up some points and rational out there, but if you don't believe sorry that's on you. Kinda like trying to convince you to stop beating that old dead horse. When your thinking it still alive when it is already dead. I live the eternal perspective and some live for the carnal. It's like living in the light of day or night and others live in the night of day...... Oil and water don't mix.

'meaningless life' aside, it would seem other people's ideas DO have an effect on you. I realize it would take a lot to convince someone else who has a completely different system of morality that they're wrong because they value the wrong things, but you cannot escape the fact that such perspectives exist and have an effect upon the society in which we all live in. Avoiding this problem by trying to 'agree to disagree' is simply trying to ignoring the elephant in the room. Better to sort it out before everyone gets trampled.

I'm wondering if you at least see why many people might have the 'crazy' idea that basing beliefs on the words in a book doesn't make sense. Is it unreasonable that other people believe this, i.e. do you really think people are insane NOT to believe what you think is obviously the truth? The point being that if you can appreciate the rationale or logic that result in those viewpoints, you might be able understand why these opposing views should be worked out.

Though I don't agree with religious conceptions of 'faith', I can appreciate the reasonableness of such beliefs because they stem from the same logical processes. You believe what you do because you measure claims based upon 'whatever' standards. X is true because...., Y is false because..., etc,. In this sense, it seems possible that people could work out differences. But the biggest hurdle is the standard of 'faith'. Valuing this standard too much or too little will result in a standoff. While utter submission to faith requires utter ignorance of all knowledge, the goal is as untenable as requiring omniscient knowledge to vet a particular belief. We exist somewhere in the middle so valuing one extreme or the other is meaningless on the one hand, yet inescapably relevant. Why else do we post our ideas on internet forums....?