No God, No morals

[Ashua]

If there is no absolute arbiter, then I am free to rape murder pillage plunder and any other destructive action that my vile human heart can imagine and be absolutely morally blameless and even a "good person." Then morality is an illusion of interpretation and nothing is truly right or wrong despite being written laws and enforced by virtue of numbers and "might makes right."

One of these theads, Deavon we talked about God and free will... And how He rules by means of his power. See how people as a collective unified entity become a God, exercising "power" over the children of men? To bear rule by means of strength and numbers and call it "law?" So, how is society any different?

That is the comedy of people who say such foolishness as "God is evil." (I am not talking about you, Deavon in particular) Such a statement is utterly idiotic.

1. If God IS, then He and He alone defines morality, which is reflective of His own characrer.

2. If God dos not exist, then neither does absolute morality; and if this is the case, how can God be evil --or anyone for that matter, even if He doesn't exist to begin with?

It is logically impossible for the Biblical God to be evil any way you slice it except the scenario in which another God(s) exist and they author a contradictive moral code --which even then wouldn't matter as an imaginary god cannot be "evil."

The statement that "God is evil" is a logical fallacy.

 

[Ashua]

In case my previous post was misundertood, I do believe in moral absolutes, and their source is God. In my last post I was examining the societal model and the problems with it regarding morality. That's what I meant when I said, "As a Christian, I would say that's what's wrong with our society."

For the record, I do believe in moral absolutes, and their source is God. If there is no God, then there are no moral absolutes, and we're left with moral relativism: "You decide what's right for you, and I'll decide what's right for me, and we'll just agree to disagree." That may be great for avoiding confrontation, but the problem with this type of thinking is it goes against reason.

Reason dictates:
IF a thing is either right or wrong
AND one person believes it's right and another person believes it's wrong
THEN one of them holds an incorrect belief

I do believe in moral absolutes. For example, it is always wrong to take an innocent life, whether it's legally euthanizing a crippled young woman who can't feed herself (as was done in Florida a few years ago), or killing a newborn because it's the wrong sex (as is done in some societies), or killing an unborn child because you don't want to be pregnant.

Don't worry. My statement was more of a general statement responding to the OP. It wasn't aimed at you.

I also believe in absolute morality as authored by God, the only legitimate moral governor and author.
For the sake of philosophical argument with nonbelievers, I default to the moral relativism stance. for thought experiment.

It appears we see eye to eye when it comes to "practice."

 

[darrell]

In that scenario, that wouldn't be moral because it infringes upon the rights of others. I'm sure that the conquering nation wouldn't see the actions as "moral". The problem with this scenario is that the majority of people today would not see it as moral, . . . though this seemed to be the case in the distant past, which DID tend to dictate and define how humanity progressed [or often failed to progress for hundreds or thousands of years because of it].

I'm not an expert in sociology or psychology either. I'm just giving my own personal oppinion and also relaying what I've heard from others that tended to make sense to me.

So then we have more than just "what is defined by a society to be moral" as to what constitutes morality. Now we have to add "anything that infringes upon the rights of others." Agreed?

 

[darrell]

Don't worry. My statement was more of a general statement responding to the OP. It wasn't aimed at you.

I also believe in absolute morality as authored by God, the only legitimate moral governor and author.
For the sake of philosophical argument with nonbelievers, I default to the moral relativism stance. for thought experiment.

It appears we see eye to eye when it comes to "practice."

I think we're on the same page.

 

[Deavonreye]

If there is no absolute arbiter, then I am free to rape murder pillage plunder and any other destructive action that my vile human heart can imagine and be absolutely morally blameless and even a "good person." Then morality is an illusion of interpretation and nothing is truly right or wrong despite being written laws and enforced by virtue of numbers and "might makes right."

Absolutely not. No one is free to do those things because it places a society into chaos, and chaos will result in collapse.

One of these theads, Deavon we talked about God and free will... And how He rules by means of his power. See how people as a collective unified entity become a God, exercising "power" over the children of men? To bear rule by means of strength and numbers and call it "law?" So, how is society any different?

Many of the laws found in the bible were wrong before the religion had begun. Many laws found in the bible would be extremely immoral today.

That is the comedy of people who say such foolishness as "God is evil." (I am not talking about you, Deavon in particular) Such a statement is utterly idiotic.

I can see how some can draw that conclusion, though.

1. If God IS, then He and He alone defines morality, which is reflective of His own characrer.

The problem is that his "morality" can be seen as immoral today [regardless of what type of law it was, back then].

2. If God dos not exist, then neither does absolute morality; and if this is the case, how can God be evil --or anyone for that matter, even if He doesn't exist to begin with?

Yep. There is no "absolute morality".

It is logically impossible for the Biblical God to be evil any way you slice it except the scenario in which another God(s) exist and they author a contradictive moral code --which even then wouldn't matter as an imaginary god cannot be "evil."

The statement that "God is evil" is a logical fallacy.

I disagree. It is quite possible for any god to be evil, in our eyes. The way out for the biblical god is that he made the rules, having all the power, that states that anything he does cannot be "wrong". However, I still insist that what was stated as either "god's words" or "god's commands" were only that of certain power hungry men with an agenda, and a way to get the people to do their will.

 

[Deavonreye]

So then we have more than just "what is defined by a society to be moral" as to what constitutes morality. Now we have to add "anything that infringes upon the rights of others." Agreed?

Those are two, . . . but I'm sure there are other factors.

 

[darrell]

Those are two, . . . but I'm sure there are other factors.

Okay. So far, you have defined morality as: the rules/behaviors defined by a society/culture to benefit the whole of that society/culture. However, they cannot infringe on individual rights.

What constitutes "individual rights"? Who or what defines these rights? What is the source of these individual rights?

Also, per this definition which includes individual rights, would you say we are currently living in a very immoral society?

 

[Jakeness]

I can see these arguments are going nowhere, so I really want to just post several things without responding to any specific person. In my opinion, #3 on this list completely negates the use of the discussions on this thread.

1) If you have even the most basic understanding of evolution, then you wouldn't have that rediculous idea of "no god = no morals"

2) Other than basic brain chemistry, morals are formed largely because of society.

3) Godless animals have morals. See: Animals can tell right from wrong - Telegraph

4) The first 4 of the 10 Commandments are probably the only major differences in morals between Christians and atheists. It isn't until commandment #5 where what I refer to as "the good stuff" begins.

 

[Deavonreye]

Okay. So far, you have defined morality as: the rules/behaviors defined by a society/culture to benefit the whole of that society/culture. However, they cannot infringe on individual rights.

What constitutes "individual rights"? Who or what defines these rights? What is the source of these individual rights?

Also, per this definition which includes individual rights, would you say we are currently living in a very immoral society?

In America? I can say that parts of it are in need of improvement. In other countries [such as what I'm watching right now, on Fox News, in Egypt], I must say that they have been under a rather immoral system.

As for individual rights, I believe that the constitution of the United States was a great document that layed out these.

 

[theLords]

3) Godless animals have morals. See: Animals can tell right from wrong - Telegraph

Animals eat their young: Why Parents Eat Their Young, Especially the Big Ones | LiveScience

 

[Deavonreye]

Interesting links. My thoughts are, . . . . the one from Telegraph was quite fascinating on how these animals act. A great study.

LiveScience study is also interesting. It shows that non-social species have no reason to "be moral", but only react to their feeding schedule or some other outside stimuli.

 

[Jakeness]

Animals eat their young: Why Parents Eat Their Young, Especially the Big Ones | LiveScience

Should I even bother with about how that is an evolutionary advantage? Am I correct in assuming you don't believe evolutionary theory?

But on the topic, you do realize that even if that type of behavior is immoral, it doesn't take away from the fact that animals do have morals?

 

[jasoncran]

Should I even bother with about how that is an evolutionary advantage? Am I correct in assuming you don't believe evolutionary theory?

But on the topic, you do realize that even if that type of behavior is immoral, it doesn't take away from the fact that animals do have morals?

really, what is to say that if one group of primates(humans) gradually change and kill others of lesser design, as they must to survive.

food, one primate has a particular nutrient that another needs.

and abortion is an evolutionary advantage?along with euthansia?

if so why?

if not why are you inconsistent.

 

[jasoncran]

really, what is to say that if one group of primates(humans) gradually change and kill others of lesser design, as they must to survive.

food, one primate has a particular nutrient that another needs.

and abortion is an evolutionary advantage?along with euthansia?

if so why?

if not why are you inconsistent.

for this scenario we are the food.

and also how can ns program us to be moral when it doesnt care.

dumb lucks gets us this far.

 

[Ashua]

Absolutely not. No one is free to do those things because it places a society into chaos, and chaos will result in collapse.

Who decides that society (I.E. the collective god) is of any special importance? Why is society valued? Because some human arbiter says so? If there is no God, I don't owe my thought or action of allegiance and obedience to ANY one because NO one is innately superior to me. So because the "majority" think these things are intrinsic evils (by virtue of popular opinion?) they are? Because there is *ahem* "power" in numbers? What about the minority philosopher's "free will?"

If "all men are created equal" stands today, how come one man's opinion that murder and rape is acceptable is overruled by that of another on the basis that it is detrimental to society? So what? Maybe my self-appointed moral code wants to see the calamity of society, even the human race. Tell me why I am immoral. tell me who is the arbiter, my fellow man.

Many of the laws found in the bible were wrong before the religion had begun. Many laws found in the bible would be extremely immoral today.

and many of the laws today would be extremely immoral in the Biblical era. So what? Travel to Papua New Guinea or Venezuela or China or England. They all have vastly different laws and cultures. Tell me which one of them is right --or is the United States the paragon of morality? What about the ancient greeks or the romans? Do you not know that this very generation and culture in which you live in today will be judged by a generation and culture not yet conceived?

And again, you can go ahead and say the Biblical laws are "wrong" and "extremely immoral" all you'd like. I'm still waiting on you to defend the claim though. Who is the moral arbiter. Who decides this? Who defines good and evil? jenseits von gut und böse. You? Are you fit to define morality for all people for all places for all time? Who is? If you cannot answer that, then you have zero basis to judge the morality of another human being, much less that of another culture.

The problem is that his "morality" can be seen as immoral today [regardless of what type of law it was, back then].

Is this an absolute statement? Is the human race unanimous? The problem with this is that your ideas of morality can be seen as wrong today by other human beings today.

I disagree. It is quite possible for any god to be evil, in our eyes. The way out for the biblical god is that he made the rules, having all the power, that states that anything he does cannot be "wrong". However, I still insist that what was stated as either "god's words" or "god's commands" were only that of certain power hungry men with an agenda, and a way to get the people to do their will.

If you take the view that man created these laws and used the title "God" to draw credibility to their own ideas on morality, then you still need to show why your modern ideas are objectively superior to those ideas of the Biblical age. I am looking for an objective, indisputable agent of arbitration. If you cannot then all you are saying is "my opinion is better than yours. my moral prejudices are right yours are evil and oppressive." Has economic inflation also tilted the balance in ideology? Is a pound of opinion today worth more than yesterday's?

 

[Ashua]

I can see these arguments are going nowhere, so I really want to just post several things without responding to any specific person. In my opinion, #3 on this list completely negates the use of the discussions on this thread.

1) If you have even the most basic understanding of evolution, then you wouldn't have that rediculous idea of "no god = no morals"

Yes, because biological-change-over-time religion has everything to do with philosophy and morality. That is why Men like Neitzche must have also not had knowledge of darwinism. Makes perfect sense.

2) Other than basic brain chemistry, morals are formed largely because of society.

Which means what? That society A is morally superior to society B because society A has evolved superior brain chemistry? As if that is objective?

3) Godless animals have morals. See: Animals can tell right from wrong - Telegraph

Like people, "godless animals" have morals. They have relative morals. Not absolute morals. No God-author of creation and the morality that binds it means no centralized core authoritative governor of morality. This means everyone is moral in his own eyesight.

Is the antelope nobler than the lion who feeds on the flesh of the antelope? Is he any more moral? Is the lion less moral? They are equally moral because they are moral authors to themselves.

4) The first 4 of the 10 Commandments are probably the only major differences in morals between Christians and atheists. It isn't until commandment #5 where what I refer to as "the good stuff" begins.

And the first four commandments mean everything if Christians are right. If they are wrong they are of neutral moral currency because atheists cannot establish an objective, unbiased, pan-morality system binding for all people, all time, all place.

If you think people are fit to define morality for other people, then what you are really saying is you believe in moral oppression and ideological slavery. Why is God exempt from this charge? Because he is the objective creator. The author of all, including morality. Human beings don't author anything. They are "siblings" without a parent if there is no God. There is no legitimate authority to bear moral rule.

Your self-contrived moral codes are no less imposing and vain than that of the ancients which came before you. This 21st century westernized ideology will pass away like those that came before it. It will be considered "savage" by the future people, and those also by them that come after even them.

 

[Deavonreye]

If there is no God, I don't owe my thought or action of allegiance and obedience to ANY one because NO one is innately superior to me. So because the "majority" think these things are intrinsic evils (by virtue of popular opinion?) they are? If "all men are created equal" stands today, how come one man's opinion that murder and rape is acceptable is overruled by that of another on the basis that it is detrimental to society? So what? Maybe my self-appointed moral code wants to see the calamity of society, even the human race. Tell me why I am immoral. tell me who is the arbiter, my fellow man.

No one is innately superior, but the whole must be for its own good. A person who desires calamity must be dealt with for the safety of the whole.

and many of the laws today would be extremely immoral in the Biblical era. So what? Travel to Papua New Guinea or Venezuela or China or England. They all have vastly different laws and cultures. Tell me which one of them is right --or is the United States the paragon of morality? What about the ancient greeks or the romans? Do you not know that this very generation and culture in which you live in today will be judged by a generation and culture not yet conceived?

And again, you can go ahead and say the Biblical laws are "wrong" and "extremely immoral" all you'd like. I'm still waiting on you to defend the claim though. Who is the moral arbiter. Who decides this? Who defines good and evil? jenseits von gut und böse. You? Are you fit to define morality for all people for all places for all time? Who is? If you cannot answer that, then you have zero basis to judge the morality of another human being, much less that of another culture.

Again, it has to do with the good of society, not individuals, but as is seen in the Constitution, the individual has rights, but they are limited in scope.

If you take the view that man created these laws and used the title "God" to draw credibility to their own ideas on morality, then you still need to show why your modern ideas are objectively superior to those ideas of the Biblical age. I am looking for an objective, indisputable agent of arbitration. If you cannot then all you are saying is "my opinion is better than yours. my moral prejudices are right yours are evil and oppressive." Has economic inflation also tilted the balance in ideology? Is a pound of opinion today worth more than yesterday's?

Okay, and example. In biblical times, it was condoned and quite acceptable to have slaves, many of whom came from conquered nations. It was condoned that, via military action, non-combatants could be killed as well, including women and children. Many actions [some quite benign] were given the death penalty.

We have advanced past the notion of slavery, killing combatants, and killing people who eat the wrong thing, touch the wrong thing, or act counter to a cultural norm.

 

[jasoncran]

No one is innately superior, but the whole must be for its own good. A person who desires calamity must be dealt with for the safety of the whole.



Again, it has to do with the good of society, not individuals, but as is seen in the Constitution, the individual has rights, but they are limited in scope.



Okay, and example. In biblical times, it was condoned and quite acceptable to have slaves, many of whom came from conquered nations. It was condoned that, via military action, non-combatants could be killed as well, including women and children. Many actions [some quite benign] were given the death penalty.

We have advanced past the notion of slavery, killing combatants, and killing people who eat the wrong thing, touch the wrong thing, or act counter to a cultural norm.

the constitution is nothing but paper if the society decides to change it.

think about it. all it would take these days, a large voting block,$$$$$$$$ and time.

politicians dont care.

we arent any better then the country of egypt.

i have worked disasters and given the right the circumstances, gas prices, food shortages, major disasters we would have some riots on that scale.

theres much on katrina you dont know

for example,power would get restored the gangsters would shot that part put in and the guard would have locate that perp and take em down or guard the lineman,often at peril

 

[Ashua]

No one is innately superior, but the whole must be for its own good. A person who desires calamity must be dealt with for the safety of the whole.

Why is the safety of the whole a moral law? I agree with you on this issue. I have an arbitration for my acceptance of this moral law. What is yours? The opinion of other people? What about the opinion of other "other people?"

Again, it has to do with the good of society, not individuals, but as is seen in the Constitution, the individual has rights, but they are limited in scope.

ah, the constitution. the modern Bible of the Neo-American civilization. You are getting closer to an objective arbiter. Alas, at the end of the day, the constitution is only the scribed down "oral tradition" of other men, at the end of the day. I reject the opinion and ideology of men for absolute-moral arbitration.

Okay, and example. In biblical times, it was condoned and quite acceptable to have slaves, many of whom came from conquered nations. It was condoned that, via military action, non-combatants could be killed as well, including women and children. Many actions [some quite benign] were given the death penalty.

We have advanced past the notion of slavery, killing combatants, and killing people who eat the wrong thing, touch the wrong thing, or act counter to a cultural norm.

Advanced on the time line, you mean? The dark age also passed by antiquity in that respect.

I am all for global abolition. I'm sure you are. That is a common moral between us. That doesn't mean that slavery is immoral in the absolute sense. Western thought teaches us that it is, but western thought also fails to establish a universal, unbiased reason why. If the industrial revolution and the advances that led up to it had not taken place, I bet you America would still be a slave nation.

 

[Pebbles]

Oats do you actually have an interest in the question you are asking? I ask because I wouldn't have thought so seeing as your asking here in largely homogeneous christian community.

If your genuinely interested in seeing how atheists work out morality without putting absolute faith in a book.

YouTube - Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? Episode 01 "THE MORAL SIDE OF MURDER"

These are Political/Philosophical lectures from a Harvard dude I think he makes the material pretty rich and fulfilling if you really are interested in learning about morality beyond faith and how we challenge our positions I would suggest you spend alittle time watching it at least.

Answer some of his questions yourself what would you do in those situations?

This is how Atheists work out morality and deal with incongruities from the simple emotive drives we all basally express and console them with our normally dominant rational side these inconsistancies are usually invisible but become more apparent when put in extreme situations where often our rationality is post humorous.

Don't think your immune to that phenomenon.