Does morality exist without God?

[quatona]

To sum up -- Atheists identify themselves when arguing about values. They have no cogent value system of their own.

I know a couple of atheists who have a value system that´s at least as cogent as the Christian one.

When deconstructing other value systems, they do not replace them with anything cogent.

Not?

This results in chaos.

The fact that people disagree in their value systems may indeed be a reason for chaos. I´m not sure I understand how that´s a problem for an atheist any more than for anybody else.

That's why I see atheism as promoting chaos,

I am an atheist, and chaos isn´t part of my value system.

and atheists as chaotic in their thoughts and actions.

By the same fallacious token, theists can be said to promote chaos because the different religions do not agree in their values and beliefs.

Atheists agree they have no cogent set of values or beliefs, and seem to celebrate that.

I for one do not agree that I have no cogent system of values or beliefs.

 

[Shane Roach]

I know a couple of atheists who have a value system that´s at least as cogent as the Christian one.

Not?


The fact that people disagree in their value systems may indeed be a reason for chaos. I´m not sure I understand how that´s a problem for an atheist any more than for anybody else.


I am an atheist, and chaos isn´t part of my value system.

By the same fallacious token, theists can be said to promote chaos because the different religions do not agree in their values and beliefs.

I for one do not agree that I have no cogent system of values or beliefs.

The way you parse people's posts promotes chaos.
Ooo! A Little Alliteration.

 

[Shane Roach]

The main thing that is wrong with that is that it is incorrect.

Atheists usually define themselves as Atheists when they are put in contrast with Theists. But Atheists don't use their disbelief in deities alone as a basis for their values, their thoughts or their actions. They can use a number of non-theistic worldviews for that... just as Theists can use a number of different religions for theirs.

And I don't think you would agree that Theists promote chaos, would you?

I do not find this to be quite accurate. No one presents their ideas "as a theist". People who believe in a god or gods present their ideas as they relate to their religion. Atheists identify as atheists to attack all religions based on their atheistic belief that there is no God, and begin to tear apart the religious tenets based on the presence of a God within the value system without, in fact, presenting any particular reason for deconstructing the underlying value system other than some vague sense that religious value systems are innately wrong somehow.

Indeed, they seem rather oblivious to the fact that, if there is no god, the value system is really no different than an atheistic one, having been devised by people with every bit as much right to have their values represented in their societies as the atheists that tend to make up any given culture.

 

[now faith]

I

Excuse me... arrogance?
I corrected you on a false information you were promoting. Are you so arrogant that you think yourself infallible, or that atheists cannot get something right? Are you so arrogant that you cannot admit a mistake, and rather alienate people?

You claim to believe in "Truth". You claim that lying is a sin... an offense against God.

And still you are willing to defend telling falsehoods?

No, you are right... I don't understand Christians. At all.

OK I regret the NASA data I have not checked it my self, it was told to by a respected man. In this debate have been false data as well posted on atheist behalf. But I do not call them lying on purposely. I post here in hopes of edification not to bash , these debates get out of hand and become mean spirited. My apologies, there exist a huge void of understandings on each side. I could not comprehend a Godless world due to being witness to the power of God in my life. You look at God without knowing him in person, so you make judgement by your own experience. If you walked in my shoes you may have had a different point of view. If you debate someone on weather at least you have a base line to reference. Your debates start out by denying God and the Bible and you expect us to prove to you without a Bible. I guess we have to call down fire as proof. In the same way you cannot prove he does not exist. Have a great life.

 

[Reliant297]

I do not find this to be quite accurate. No one presents their ideas "as a theist". People who believe in a god or gods present their ideas as they relate to their religion. Atheists identify as atheists to attack all religions based on their atheistic belief that there is no God, and begin to tear apart the religious tenets based on the presence of a God within the value system without, in fact, presenting any particular reason for deconstructing the underlying value system other than some vague sense that religious value systems are innately wrong somehow.

Indeed, they seem rather oblivious to the fact that, if there is no god, the value system is really no different than an atheistic one, having been devised by people with every bit as much right to have their values represented in their societies as the atheists that tend to make up any given culture.

Well put on the definition of atheists and how the definition of the term supplements their ideas against true religions. On the subject of values there really is no indifference.

 

[ABlessedAnomaly]

Ok,

I'll try to cut down what could be an incredibly long winded response!

The whole point behind the initial argument is this:

From a Christian Perspective:
1. God can see all of time
2. God creates everything

Assuming you agree with those points:

Therefore God must know everything about anyone he creates, the moment he creates them. Otherwise he can not see all of time.

Free Will is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if the person is free to make his own choices or not. Since God can see all time, he must know what the person's ultimate fate is, even if the person makes all his own choices.

I assume we probably agree so far.


So moving further, we also know a person makes choices based on that person's brain. Some brains are wired differently than others, and that will cause some people to make different choices, or believe different things.

If God created the person, he must have also created that person's brain, and wired it a certain way. Some will be very prone to religious belief, some will be very resistant to religious belief.

Therefore, even with free will, people extremely unlikely to follow religion are starting off with the deck stacked against them. And since God knows all, he must know he is setting many people up for almost certain failure.

The thing I disagree with is that you continue to give a confused set of examples. You wish to agree that God sees all of time (a timeless effect) and then say "the moment He creates" (a timed effect). By mixing the two you will never find a consistent answer.

You also are inherently dismissing the concept that God, being much smarter than we are and much more powerful, can create a being with truly free will (not a pre-wired computer that must compute along a linear and predictable path).

God did not tell a man "I create you now, and you will believe A-H-C-S-E-F-P-X-B-L." Instead God crated a man and said I see that he will have learned these things and that he ended up at "L" but for now he is still at 'C'.

As to your interstate example, the logical flaw in the example is that you're using a virtual guarantee in your scenario, where God is not a virtual guarantee by any means.
The Atheist viewpoint is not that there's no car... as there's plenty of verifiable testable evidence backing the idea that cars regularly drive down the interstate. He is provided with plenty of good reason to assume he's going to get run over by sleeping on the interstate.

You're telling me what you know about interstates or what you experiment if you had the time. I'm asking you to look at the person who has never seen them, comes across one and lies down and doesn't have time to experiment.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I think your response really does illustrate exactly what I mean. I did not say that atheism in and of itself constituted a belief system. I said atheists seem loathe to sit down and really think about, evaluate, and create a broader value system that includes their atheism. They glom onto ancient religious systems, but then attack them piecemeal without any particular regard for the system they are deconstructing as a whole.

You're not making any sense.

On one hand, you're claiming you recognize it's not a belief system... then bash it for not having the characteristics of a belief system.

Why would people who happen to not believe in God get together and write out a book like the one you're proposing? What use would it possibly have? Given the fact that the vast majority of atheists already understand morals, it would be a totally pointless endeavour.

Secondly, we also don't glom onto ancient religious systems. I do not credit Christianity (or any religion) for the "invention of morality". I recognize there are some generally moral passages in the bible, as well as some heinously immoral ones. Furthermore, I think Christianity (and religion in general) has historically been far more destructive than productive when it comes to furthering the human race. I have no desire to glom onto a record like that.

Again and again and again I have seen atheists angrily attacking the very concept of an atheist "world view" or "mindset". So fine. I agree. Why do you find that upsetting? Why are you attempting to characterize my agreement with your statement that atheists have no cohesive philosophy as somehow "bigoted"?

Bigot: : a person who is obstinatelyhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obstinate or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance (From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

Countless times you have broadly referred to Atheists as Immoral and Chaotic, while displaying the fact you know nothing about them. You've accused us of being freeloaders by piggybacking off your so called ethics, and suggesting that we are a general drain on society.

If you had any kind of evidence to back up what you're talking about, you might be justified in saying it. However, you are just spewing ignorance fuelled by your own opinion of what an Atheist is.

I certainly see atheists tossing that accusation around a lot these days. Pretty much any time you disagree with an atheist, you are bigoted. Now it seems you get that tag if you agree with them as well.

Given the way you refer to and talk down to atheists, I'm not surprised at all you often hear the accusation that you're an intolerant bigot. Perhaps if you stopped being an intolerant bigot, you'd hear that accusation far less.

I've had many debates with people on this forum and elsewhere, without the hint of an insult coming from either side. That's because the person is generally open minded and willing to have a mature discussion.

When you come on here railing on Atheists as being chaos-inducing immoral deadbeats.... you have no right to expect a friendly response in return.

As for the observation that bald people do not have a united world view either, I do not notice bald people uniting continually to attack value systems.

That's because bald people as a demographic aren't constantly being insulted and oppressed by another demographic. If there were people going after Bald People and wrongfully calling them the bane of society, and whatnot... you might find Bald people would try to fight back as well.

That being said, they still wouldn't need a book of Bald People's Worldviews.

To sum up -- Atheists identify themselves when arguing about values. They have no cogent value system of their own. When deconstructing other value systems, they do not replace them with anything cogent. This results in chaos.

"They have no cognent value system of their own" Here is a shining example of your ignorance. You are simply wrong.

"When deconstructing other value systems, they do not replace them with anything cogent" This is another mindless assertion. Please give an example of a "value system" we have deconstructed.

That's why I see atheism as promoting chaos, and atheists as chaotic in their thoughts and actions. Atheists agree they have no cogent set of values or beliefs, and seem to celebrate that.

See Bigotry post above. You have absolutely no evidence to back your assertion. You're simply prejudiced.

Our values and beliefs rest in common human morality. The vast majority of those who identify themselves as Atheists would generally agree that we wish to live together peacefully, while trying to make the world the best place possible.

Why, again, are you then offended when someone agrees with you that you do not? What exactly is wrong with pointing out the chaos that is often the result?

Referring to my first point, your whole assertion is based on the fact that we don't have centralized dogma... while recognizing the fact that Atheism is not a world view.

I'm not offended at that contradiction, as you don't fully understand what you're talking about. However, when you use that flawed premise to insult Atheists, that's when we get offended.

Chaos is not the result of Atheism. Give me one example of Chaos that you're talking about, you're being very vague about your whole chaos assertion as it is.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Are there no limits on atheist arrogance ! You bash are God Christ you say we are speaking nonsense in a Christian forum. Your position from the start is no God now let's debate. Let's play tennis and I do not give you a racquet, yeah I win!,, then when we try to work on your rigged game you call us liars for giving our opinion . You can no more understand Christians than I can understand atheist.As far as morals I love you all, but I may not like you.

We corrected you on false proofs that you had given, for example on the NASA thing we even linked you to the NASA homepage that dismissed the claim you made as urban legend.

We recognize you may not have intentionally misled people, but it's clear you didn't research into the claims you were making. We just called you out where you were wrong, and there's nothing incorrect about doing that. If I make a statement I'm clearly wrong about, I'd expect to hear it too. The difference is, I would appreciate being corrected as it gives me a greater understanding of what's actually true.

The problem is, after you were corrected on some points, you still continued to argue from those points. That is intellectual dishonesty.

We're not playing Tennis without a racquet. We can say what we wish, you can say what you wish. If I had a belief I strongly felt was true, I would welcome criticism of it. If it's true, it should stand on it's own merits. Unfortunately, no religion to date has met that standard.

 

[Shane Roach]

Bigot: : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance (From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary)





That's because bald people as a demographic aren't constantly being insulted and oppressed by another demographic. If there were people going after Bald People and wrongfully calling them the bane of society, and whatnot... you might find Bald people would try to fight back as well.



See Bigotry post above. You have absolutely no evidence to back your assertion. You're simply prejudiced.

Our values and beliefs rest in common human morality.

You are the example I am speaking of. You say, "Our values and beliefs rest in common human morality," but atheists do NOT have a common agreement on what that is, nor any particular desire to put one together. They also have absolutely no respect for people who HAVE put such belief systems together if they refer to any sort of God at all. That's hardly a recipe for peace and universal tolerance.

So now you are saying you do have common beliefs, but that you don't, and anyone who finds that chaotic is a bigot (twice), thus destroying any illusions anyone might have about the peace and love angle of atheism, and still find a way to work a physical trait into a conversation about values (baldness again).

*shrugs*
Chaos.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I do not find this to be quite accurate. No one presents their ideas "as a theist". People who believe in a god or gods present their ideas as they relate to their religion. Atheists identify as atheists to attack all religions based on their atheistic belief that there is no God, and begin to tear apart the religious tenets based on the presence of a God within the value system without, in fact, presenting any particular reason for deconstructing the underlying value system other than some vague sense that religious value systems are innately wrong somehow.

Indeed, they seem rather oblivious to the fact that, if there is no god, the value system is really no different than an atheistic one, having been devised by people with every bit as much right to have their values represented in their societies as the atheists that tend to make up any given culture.

Well actually, in a way they do indirectly present their argument from a theistic perspective. It may be based in the Christian religion, however by necessity it is also a theistic argument.

However, you are correct that we view all religions equally as without basis for belief. However, you are not really accurate in using the word attack. Critique or Debate would be a more proper term. I'm not arguing against your religion based on a vague sense... I'm arguing against it because it's either clearly incorrect in parts, or without evidence to back it in the others.

Since it is such a powerful force in society, I would rather see society move past the superstition and myth, and the various real world wrongs that are spawned by it... and work to improve society.


And you're wrong, because the Christian Value system has many immoral parts that are only justified by the fact that "God Said So". If God doesn't exist, they are still immoral teachings, and that's why it doesn't jive with what the average atheist would believe.

 

[Dave Ellis]

The thing I disagree with is that you continue to give a confused set of examples. You wish to agree that God sees all of time (a timeless effect) and then say "the moment He creates" (a timed effect). By mixing the two you will never find a consistent answer.

You also are inherently dismissing the concept that God, being much smarter than we are and much more powerful, can create a being with truly free will (not a pre-wired computer that must compute along a linear and predictable path).

God did not tell a man "I create you now, and you will believe A-H-C-S-E-F-P-X-B-L." Instead God crated a man and said I see that he will have learned these things and that he ended up at "L" but for now he is still at 'C'.

You have to use the word "the moment god created him" because there's no word to describe something made outside of time.

However, it could also be argued that people exist within time. Therefore there is a moment that anything is created in this universe.

Either way you want to go with it, it doesn't contradict the point of the argument.

Your second point unfortunately doesn't jive with what we know about the brain. We know our brain chemistry will predispose us to certain beliefs, opinions and habits. God must have created a persons brain, so he would have had to set it up however it's set up.

You're telling me what you know about interstates or what you experiment if you had the time. I'm asking you to look at the person who has never seen them, comes across one and lies down and doesn't have time to experiment.

The point is that you're still arguing an inevitable outcome. In your scenario it's a given the guy is going to get hit by a car. In real life, it's not a given that God exists... therefore you can not use an "inevitable outcome" scenario like that. You're arguing apples and oranges.

 

[Dave Ellis]

You are the example I am speaking of. You say, "Our values and beliefs rest in common human morality," but atheists do NOT have a common agreement on what that is, nor any particular desire to put one together.

Bull... If you have an Atheist, a Jew, a Christian, a Buddhist, a Hindu and a Muslim hanging out together, they could very well say that they have common moral values.... And they probably do for the most part. I would imagine they would be in common agreement that killing, theft, rape and other things like that are wrong... where charity, happiness, success and whatnot are good.

None of those people have a common written book of ethics with each other, yet they can all be in agreement about basic moral values. That says morality is independent of their religions or world views.

They also have absolutely no respect for people who HAVE put such belief systems together if they refer to any sort of God at all. That's hardly a recipe for peace and universal tolerance.

I have respect for many people who are religious, that doesn't mean I have to respect their views on a particular subject. If they decide to raise religion as an issue, I'm going to offer rebuttals to points I am not in agreement with.

Peace and universal tolerance doesn't mean you're not allowed to debate points. In fact, open respectful debate is usually key in determining what is true. If having your opinions critiqued offends you, the only advice I can offer is to grow up. I personally enjoy having my opinions tested in a good debate, it's been very enlightening over the years.

So now you are saying you do have common beliefs, but that you don't, and anyone who finds that chaotic is a bigot (twice), thus destroying any illusions anyone might have about the peace and love angle of atheism, and still find a way to work a physical trait into a conversation about values (baldness again).

*shrugs*
Chaos.

Because getting back to your initial fallacious argument... Atheism is not a world view. The only guaranteed opinion they hold in common is that they don't believe in a god.

As Atheists, we do not have dogma, and that is what you are essentially criticizing us for... We don't have a centralized "moral authority", because it's completely irrelevant.

Furthermore, you can't comprehend the idea that people just want to be moral for the sake of being moral... and don't need big brother dictating to us on how to act.

Despite the lack of Dogma, we are all generally in agreement that we want to see the world become a better, more peaceful place. We all generally have the same moral ideals, because most people naturally want to be good people.

But what you are not recognizing, is the ideals expressed above are totally independent of atheism. It has nothing to do with anything at all apart from an opinion on a god claim. Every other opinion a person has, may it be a moral/ethical value, or whatever is totally unrelated. This is why a centralized authority is irrelevant.
If you want to talk worldviews, then the majority of atheists would identify themselves also as secular humanists. That is a worldview, Atheism is not. Again, Atheism is a singular opinion on a single topic. If you want to read up more on Secular Humanism, here's the Wikipedia page: Secular humanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


So I guess to finally skewer your point, Atheists are not chaotic because Atheists do have worldviews.... Atheism however is not that worldview, because it isn't a worldview. There's a number of different ones someone could choose, and I'd say out of the Atheist demographic, most would go with Secular Humanism. Chaos never enters into the picture.

 

[someguy14]

Can't ever go wrong, but fails, because of "wickedness".

Wickedness is the fail. Without wickedness, perfection is all that is. Gods kingdom is not of this world.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Wickedness is the fail. Without wickedness, perfection is all that is. Gods kingdom is not of this world.

If God's kingdom is not of this world, then how do you know it's there?

 

[someguy14]

Show me compelling evidence, and I will be more than happy to investigate.

Jonas.

 

[someguy14]

You clearly do not understand what Buddhism is.

Rebuttal. Rebuttal!

 

[someguy14]

Indeed.

I'm also wondering how exactly reincarnation is "worldly gain" and yet nary a comment is made about the reward for being a good Christian - permanent emotional bliss in a city made of bling.

Reincarnation is a fail. reincarnation promotes entering into a dieing again and failing, again.

God is The Source of all goodness. All wisdom. All perfection. God always wins. God created it.

 

[someguy14]

I have read the bible cover to cover and was raised as a Presbyterian.

The demons believe also, and tremble.

 

[someguy14]

An Omniscient God who gives people free will is contradictory.

Choice. Love is not forced.

 

[someguy14]

Hell is a fiction born of the influences of latter theologians after taking ideas from the Jews and warping them.

Hell.

Cannot lie.